The first and foremost reason for invading Afghanistan and Iraq was the same: to democratize the Middle East. Afghanistan was chosen for obvious reasons, not least of which was the highly oppressive government that ran the place. Excessively centralized governments are easier to conquer because the snake has only one head. Or so the theory goes.

Iraq, being run by a wicked despot, was also “ripe” for democratization, and since overthrowing Saddam was official U.S. policy since 1998 (see Some Guy’s statement), it only made sense. Iraq’s geographic location (central) and geographic conditions (mostly flat, as opposed to the mountainous Iran) were favorable, as well.

The quest to democratize the Middle East has always been job one. Everything else is peripheral.

The Iraq Liberation Act

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.” This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council’s efforts to keep the current regime’s behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa–tory political system that will include all of Iraq’s diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq’s current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq’s weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

Are you kidding? The link you provided does not detract from my point. Yes, there are other references made in the joint resoilution including a reference to 9/11 – but almost all of them refer to WMD or the UN resolutions related to WMD. How can you read that and say it was only one of 23 reasons? What other reasons are given?

Also, Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair that “for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”

Then there was Condi Rice talking about mushroom clouds.

Colin Powell addressing the U.N.Security Council about mobile weapons labs and such.

And in November, 2005, King George, himself:

“While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war.

These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s judgments related to Iraq’s weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: ‘When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.’ That’s why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.”

While most of what he said there was false (there definitely was pressure, and evidence supporting the administration’s desire to go to war was cherry picked to that end) even he is saying that the reason we went to war was for WMD.

That was supposed to be “reader response” not ask a reader.

Anyhoo, I thought the Ray-ban thing was about arab culture and the need for eye contact.

Go figure.

All kidding aside, it is a treat to be a colleague of Dr. Hanson’s, though we may not always agree.

Eric, your assertion that WMD was the single issue is demonstrably false.

There were exactly 23 justifications provided in the October 2002 resoltuon for going to war with Iraq. Only 10 of those 23 even mention WMD. Of those 10, many concern facts that no one disputes, e.g. that Iraq thwarted inspectors work leading to their depature from Iraw in 1998 and that Iraq had previously demonstrated its willingness to use WMD against its own citizens and others.

If you reached the conclusion that WMD was the single issue at the time, it only indicates that you were either not paying close attention four years ago, you were but didn’t understand what you heard, or you were misled by the mainstream media who failed utterly in their responsibility to inform the public about the totality of the case being made against Iraq.

Here’s a link for those of you who’d like to read the “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq” for yourselves (dated October 2, 2002)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

thoughtfully,
starling

To this list I would add one more member- (not so) Big Labor. Most notable among them are (1) teachers unions who consistently stymie efforts at school-choice and performance-based accountability and (2) commerical workers unions who have been encouraged of late by Democratic presidential hopefuls to step up their attacks on Wal-Mart, arguably the most successful and well-run public company in American history.

Ray-bans (and othe sunglasses) are considered impersonal and intimidating. (Saddam’s thugs made a point of wearing them.), while body armor implies an expectation of combat and violence. The British prefer a “softly, softly” approach, though I have to question how effective that was in Ulster. (And, certainly, that was not the approach they used in Malaya.)