W Redux
From Zanecorpwiki
Talking with Jaylon this weekend, I settled on my "unique point" of the Iraq war. The war was and is certainly a complex, multi-faceted thing with lots of motivations and forces mixed up in it. But for myself, I just keep going back to when the invasion actually began, boots on the ground. Up until that point, I really thought the positioning and jockeying, and everything else was a move to keep the pressure on. I just didn't believe that America would start a war of aggression in my lifetime.
I even remember the "weapons of mass destruction" and bullshit and thinking, "Well, it's cynical, but I assume the leadership understands... just like anyone who bothers to follow the facts and listen to the people that would know understand... that there are no weapons of mass destruction. There's no evidence, no motive, and no real reason to think they exist. I assume they know that and are cynically making the point as just another way to 'keep the pressure on'."
Turned out I was wrong. The administration was pushing for actual war. The Congress was going to let it happen. The American people were going to let it happen. Turns out the administration was justs that ignorant, or didn't care or bother to learn the truth that was available to even moderately engaged citizens like myself. Even as I write this now, it seems like I'm making rhetorical flourishes and what not, but I really was gob smacked. What we did was so far out of the bounds of rational and moral that I assumed it had to be theater. When it turned out to be real, there was a big part of me that found myself living in a world very different than the one I thought I lived in.
So, many years later now, why did we do it? I know the levers, 9/11, American fears, Iraqi intransigence, money, oil, all that stuff. Most of that wasn't new, and 9/11 itself was just an isolated event. And besides, Iraq had nothing to do with the terror attacks. If you were going to expand your war on terror outside of Afghanistan, the only follow on target that makes any sense is Saudi Arabia. Iraq only makes sense if your goal is regime change for it's own sake.
In this case, the idea that regime change can be used to instigate a democratic movement. Bush is well known for wanting to "promote democracy in the Middle East," and i believe that's a fair attribution.
So, the difference, the catalyst that motivated pulling all the other elements together without which I do not believe we would have invaded Iraq boils down in large part to W's legacy. Not that weren't many other necessary conditions, but in some sense, those were either pre-existing or exogenous. I feel like "the moment of free will" came down to this W's desire for legacy.
It's easy to be cynical about that. To say, "How horrible that so many lives were lost, so many hornet nests stirred, all over this man's ego. His hubris." And that's a fair criticism. On the other hand, don't we want our leaders to look at themselves historically? To think, "How will I be remembered?"
In this case, I think there was too much hubris and not nearly enough humility.
