Iraq: Why We Went, Why We Screwed Up, and Why It Matters Now

Summary: Bush invaded Iraq for domestic political reasons, to enlarge Republican majorities. The invasion, they thought, would cause the American people to rally around them, and provide large, lockstep majorities to shove their radical rightwing programs down the throats of the American people who really reject almost every part of their philosophy by large majorities. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld screwed it all up because their tactical choices were limited by not triggering domestic opposition. This matters now because Bush/Cheney/Rove's decision on policy changes in Iraq will be driven not by what is good for the United States nor any concern about the morality of asking even more people to die for a mistake, but how best to rescue their legacy and radical rightwing ideology.

Much ink has been spilled on the ever-changing rationales for spilling our blood in Iraq: WMD, oil, Israel, Saudi Arabia, revenge, al-Qaeda, the "war" on terror, establishing democracy, creating an ally against the war on terror, and on and on to the latest, not giving the terrorists a victory. A special commission was established to investigate the intelligence failures but not to determine whether the intelligence was misused to make the case for war.

But, all the evidence shows that Bush and most of his close advisors wanted to invade Iraq. Cheney had said on Meet the Press on 9/23/01 (i.e., after 9/11) that Iraq "was contained". Andrew Card, the former Chief of Staff, explained the September, 2002, "discovery" that Iraq suddenly required action as "you don't start a marketing push in August". What happened, on their watch, that allowed Saddam to escape containment and become an imminent threat was never explained (nor was it asked, a dereliction of duty almost equivalent to Bush's).

The bigger unanswered question is "why?". Why did Dick Cheney, who argued in the '90s that toppling Saddam was not worth the lives of many Americans, who said it would result in an urban quagmire, become a delusional proponent of that very endeavor? Why did they all ridicule and dismiss their own people who said it would require more troops and cost more money? Seeing the situation deteriorating, why did they not send more troops early on to secure the country?

Applying "Ockam's Razor", (when there are competing explanations, choose the simplest that ties it all together), the only answer that explains why they invaded, and why they mismanaged, is "(E) None of the Above". Rather, it is all consistent with the one goal they have ruthlessly and relentlessly pursued: domestic political power. Despite all their cheery rhetoric of the electorate moving rightward, they took 2 Presidential elections under very questionable circumstances, and barely; they improved their Congressional majorities in '04 only by the DeLay Texas gerrymander; and, the people of the country revolted when they tried to eliminate key social programs and despoiled Terry Schiavo's dignity. Iraq was seen as an opportunity to swell their ranks, and then force their philosophy down the throats of the smiling American people who would not know what was happening to them because they would wrap their initiatives in Orwellian language ("Saving Social Security", "Strengthening Medicare", "Clear Skies", "Healthy Forests").

They saw the war in Afghanistan as having no impact on the US electorate (Rumsfeld did not think it had "enough good targets", i.e, read, no pictures with which they could wow the public). They did not commit a batallion (~600 troops) of US Rangers to get Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in Tora Bora because they did not want US casualties to dampen the enthusiasm for invading Iraq by reminding people that wars are not costless.

"Shock and awe", applied against target-rich Iraq, was actually designed to shock-and-awe the American electorate. The reason they invaded Iraq with too small a force was because sustaining a much larger force, as Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki correctly said would be needed, would have required a mobilization that would have turned the public against the enterprise before it began. They removed Jake Garner, the first 'pro-consul' after Saddam was toppled, because he was going to turn the country quickly back to the Iraqis---at this point, they saw Iraq as a "prize", and wanted to award their friends (who could then reward them back with political support) the contracts to rebuild the country. "Mission Accomplished" was a direct reference to their misguided understanding of what they had undertaken, but an indirect reference to the latitude they expected to enjoy in jerking the country far-right.

If Iraq really were, or is, the central theater in the war on terror, is this how it would have been handled? Would we not have inserted overwhelming force, just in case it were needed? Would we not have enlarged the military, perhaps even a draft, to have the numbers? Even the terminally deluded would have fought this war differently if any of their claimed rationales were truly the driving force.

Why does this matter, now? Further revelations of the hypocrisy and incompetence of Bush et al. has lost its bite, it is the expected. Doing something, anything, right would be news. The Bush/Cheney Presidency is a disaster on every front, and because of that, the country is in a precarious situation that will not be righted for at least a generation.

Why we invaded matters now because the decisions he makes going forward will cause the deaths and dismemberment of thousands of more US boys and girls, and many times that number of Iraqis. These decisions will be guided by that same, pernicious principle, although by now they have been reduced to preventing the killing of the rightwing agenda instead of advancing it.

The Baker-Hamilton Report had one essential truth: either the Iraqis get their own act together---in which case, our military is not needed---OR, they do not--in which case, our military cannot help them, so that, in either situation, our military intervention should be ended post haste. Any decision that prolongs the US involvement a day more than logistically necessary to withdraw safely lacks any moral foundation.

The reason Bush is making this show of deliberation is that they (Rove, Cheney et al) cannot figure out what their best political play is now that their entire enterprise has blown up in their faces. They are trying to hang on until January, 2009, so that the next President is "blamed" for the eventual outcome that is not going to be in the national interests of the United States.

But, the cowardly, shift-the-blame game is already beginning. From all we can tell, Bush will edge out General Casey so as to suggest without stating it that it was Casey's advice---not the entire enterprise, not the lies and hypocrisy, not the incompetence of the Commander-in-Chief to select and judge his underlings, not the stupidity of the undertaking known well by Cheney and Bush's father, not the arrogance of believing that they could contain the 'dogs of war' once unleashed--no, the quagmire will be Casey's fault, and Bush, new team in place, will insist he has the right to be believed that, this time, it is going to work.

There is no US military mission in Iraq that will impact the outcome 5 years after we leave. There remains the moral duty to protect those who have cast their lots with us (including the right to immigrate to the US), and the moral duty to do what is possible without undue risk to US soldiers to prevent an orgasm of bloodletting, but that is the only mission the US military can accomplish.

Bush is a failed President. More worrisome, he is a failed person with power. Unchecked, he will spend others' lives and limbs to escape his failures and insecurities.

He cannot be allowed to do so.