Bush wanted the war to serve his Napoleonic-Oedipal needs.

Karl Rove wanted the war to promote a war president and seal Republican control for decades to come.

Kissinger and his ilk wanted the war to teach the Muslim rabble a lesson.

The Neocons wanted the war to further their radical ideology of an aggressive international democracy and free market.

Rumsfeld wanted the war to show case his new model shock and awe army.

Israel and the pro-Israeli lobby wanted the war to eliminate the last conventiol force that threatend them, isolate the Palestinians and pave the way for a unilateral settlement where bilateral talks had failed.

Cheney and his oil cronies wanted the war to lease the oil fields to American and British companies and use control over them as a hedge against the instability of Saudi Arabia, the animosity of Iran, Russia and Venezuala, and a brake against China's economic growth.

All of these reasons are equally plausible and desirable to the respective players in this world game. But unless these disparate groups and interests find themselves in positions of power and influence, there can be no war. Most of these people or groups either advocated or thought about invading Iraq since the 90's. They could not do it because Clinton held the power. Even if Clinton wanted to invade Iraq, Congress would likely have blocked him simply because it was something Clinton wanted.

But in January, 2001 each and every one of the above found themselves in positions of both power and overwhelming influence. I agree with those who think Iraq was on the table before 9/11. If anything, 9/11 threw them off course and caused Bush to focus on Al Quaida and Afganistan. Only after it appeared that war was won did Iraq return to center stage. This time, rather than trying to pick a fight with Iraq to create the war, this perfect storm of zealots, opportunists and fools used 9/11 to take out the two powers that would have stood in their way, Congress and the media. Congress couldn't object without looking weak on terror. The media if it wasn't helping beat the drum, it wasn't inclined to question a "war president."

It isn't all about oil. Like August 1914 it is what happens when various people with a very bad idea suddenly find themselves at the controls and without adult supervision.

A couple of points about previous comments. Few countries have held as many joint meetings as have the Muslim and Arab countries. Few have used those meetings to try to accomplish greater dreams. And most of all, few have accomplished so little. Believing an all Muslim nation confab will fix their "own house" is the type of thinking that isn't just naive, but, like Kissinger, assumes all Muslim majority nations share a common interest or that their religion, unlike Christianity, binds them to put all other interests aside. But hey, Serbia was a Christian nation. Surely those Christian European nations could meet and set out a way to solve the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo. Right? Right?

Had Bremer fired the Baathists, army and police with pay, he would have succeeded not in preventing them from joining or running the insurgency, but merely provided them more funds to obtain arms and recruits. Taking away their power and dignity also had something to do with their animosity.

Saddam didn't maintain control by getting neighbors to rat on each other. Were that were true and our work their would be finished. It wasn't even the selective use of terror, though that helped. Most of all, he used the oil revenues to pay everyone off. Gas was subsidized at 5 cents a gallon, electricity was close to free, health care was free, and everyone had a job and a pension, even if the factory they worked for didn't need them. How well do you think the average Iraqi, Sunni or Shia, took to Bremer's privatization plan?

This is why they shot all the Romanovs. Yes, even Anastasia.

Occupation? Isn't that what we did in the Korean and Vietnam wars? Baathist Insurgency? Isn't that basically former Sunni leaders opposed to a government led by Shias? As in civil war? Sectarian conflict? As in Sunnis fighting Shias, as in a civil war? Al Quaida types? As in zealots using a civil war to foment their own version of what they want the new government to be? As in civil war? Criminil gangs? Isn't that what happens when organized society breaks apart in civil war and there is no force left to stem criminal opportunism?

When by all rational thought has this conflict NOT been a civil war? Isn't the very definition of civil war, an armed conflict between disparate interests inside a single country; as opposed to an invasion into another country?

It's a civil war, people. Iraqis are killing Iraqis to determine who should rule the country. Our army and our country has no power whatsoever to quell or affect the outcome. More likely our presence creates more violence than it stems. The only thing we can accomplish by sending in more troops is to create such a threat to Sunni, Shia and Kurds that they would unite forces to drive us out. It's what the Soviets succeeded in doing. The end result was not exactly a kumbaya moment if I recall.

Best case scenario would involve leaving as quickly as possible, impeaching and removing the current administration, concentrating on Afganistan and rebuilding our military to deal with any alleged overconfidence that so called terrorists might gain from this debacle.