Letters to the Editor
-
Try reading PMAC
Its very clear in that document that the Neo Cons planned the invasion of Iraq back in the mid-90's because Israel wanted Saddam Hussein out. Everytime they bulldozed down a Paletinian home, farm or business, Hussein would provide the family with money to rebuild. He was an annoyance to Israel, as is Iran. The rest of the evil cabal jumped on board because it benefited their particular end - bringing us one day closer to armegeddon and the return of Jesus, using a war as an excuse to stage a corporate coup in the US for the Cheney crowd and a good old fashioned opportunity to make some money off of the spoils of war for the usual suspects.
-
What's Rich's point?
The article is curious in that it neglects any of the gung-ho PNAC spirit that apparently has driven all of Dubya's other international antics.
-
Why we went to war
Looking forward to reading the book, however I think the case can actually be made that different players went to war for different reasons. Re the PNAC (its an N) the neo-cons went to war because they believed that he who controls the oil controls the world and he who controls Iraq (just look at a map to sense its geopolitical centarility to the region) controls the oil; Rove went to war because of his sense that Americans would also vote for the 'tough' guys in war and that's about all the Republicans had to offer; I suspect the American people went to war with Iraq because they viewed it as revenge for 9/11. The Democrats went to war because they senses what the people were thinking and knew they'd be blown away in 2002 (and 2004) if they didn't. The interesting thing is we still really don't know why Bush himslef wnet to war. Very possibly it was no more than to do what his daddy had failed to do. Interesting to know what history will say about all this...
-
Good to see someone researched and wrote about this.
I had this theory for quite some time and thought about writing about it in some form but never did. However, I didn't think that the Bush Administration not only did this to win midterm elections, but also to insure a presidential win in 2004 as well. If most people remember, security and the war on terrorism were major themes. In fact I'm not even sure the administration cared about congress. For the most part, they were lapdogs for the president and his position was all that mattered.
Some of the ideas are in this article but this is how I saw the whole reasoning in relation to being in the White House.
1 - The general public knew where Iraq was, because we had been there before, and they know the horrors of Sadam and his Government in the most simplistic terms. Iraq's leader, Bad. Take out Leader of Iraq, Good.
2 - The general public also knew that we did amazingly well in the first Gulf War with very few casualties. This war would be the same and would be an "easy" sell to the voters because they wouldn't see body bags returning in any amount to give them doubts.
3 - As noted in the article, Bush's poll numbers were falling. He couldn't keep up his Wartime president status without a continuing conflict that was engaging the public. Most people can't point to Afghanistan on a Map but they know where Iraq is. He had huge popularity after 9/11 and they could use that to persuade congress and the public into their plan.
Simply put: "We are going in to take out the bad guy that everyone hates. Don't worry, we won't lose any troops just like last time, it'll be a cakewalk. Put trust in your [popular] president." These three points make the public easy to persuade and set the election tone not for just the midterm elections, but for the presidency and years to come.
-
Truth
The genius here is that Rich's explanation for the war in Iraq is obvious, now that it has been presented. It's just that no one else had the combination of courage and insight required to say it. To me, that's a good definition of genius.
-
IMO
...Bush sleepwalked into the war. There were a million reasons for the war and none at all. Bush is not a person who thinks things through, he's a person who follows his compulsions and his compulsions carried him into Iraq.
Among the varied compulsions: the lunatic strength doctrine that conservatives love to bandy so much. This is the idea that America must actively display strength and resolve to deter aggression. (The idea is nicely parodied in today's Ruben Bolling.) Afghanistan was too easy for this purpose and Iraq seemed to fit the bill.
Fundamentally the strength doctrine is racist. It postulates that dark skinned people are easily cowed and that hitting one set of dark skinned people over here will cause another set of dark skinned people over there to behave themselves. It harks back to the practice of lynching individuals to keep the black population in line.
Also Bush may have actually forced himself into the war. First the idea was put out that the threat of invasion was only to put pressure on Saddam to comply with weapons inspections. Then later they felt compelled to invade in order to prove that Bush 'says what he means and means what he says.' So they may have been driven more by their own loose rhetoric then by their firm decisions.
It's a mistake to believe that the Bushies are commanding people. These people are in no way masters of their fates. Unfortunately they may be masters of our fates, however.
-
Psychology is Real
It should have been obvious to any relatively intelligent individual that the reasons and explanations offered in the lead-up to the Iraq War were pretty shaky. Thus, why were there so few individual such as Messrs. Rich and Krugman who served as "voices crying in the wind" against them? I loved pschology in college but I never really viewed it as more than an academic discipline. However, as I grow older I realize my mistake: psychological motivations are real and powerful. Animal behavioral studies have shown that the avoidance of pain is a more powerful behavioral motivator than the obtainment of an award. In other words, fear works.
The Bush Administration/Republican Party have entirely abandoned appeals to logic and reason. Logic is no good for a party that promotes an elitist agenda. As the party leaders are well aware, the average person will not benefit from most Republican policies. So, how do you convince people to vote against their own interests in a "What's the matter with Kansas?" manner? Easy. You scare them; scare them half to death. Scared people do not think rationally. To paraphrase one columnist, the current Republican political platform is pretty much, "vote Republican or get blowed up!".
Luckily for us there are some people like Messrs. Rich and Krugman who are either so analytical, cynical, smart, of all of the above, that these psychological techniques do not work on them. And now, to its great discomfort, The Bush Administration has applied the same fear stimuli so often that the effect is starting to wear off. This leaves it no choice but to rachet up the dosage of fear to even higher levels.