[Bond]

I know this post was directed toward Professor, but I would like to jump in here with a few points. At the time of the invasion I was an ardent supporter. Since then, my support has waned, but I still do think a case can be made.

Originally Posted by Dylflon

What concerns me however it the pretext under which US Forces went into the country. If I remember correctly there were a series of different excuses that changed as the conflict went on. I can't remember if it started with Iraqi ties to Al Quaeda or with the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

The public reasoning that the Administration put forth during the lead-up to the Iraq war was, in retrospect, mostly inaccurate, yes. However, the intelligence agencies of France, Great Britain, and the United States, all believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. So, did the Administration "lie" to the American people? Perhaps. It is also possible they believed this intelligence (they had no reason not to), and that it was their primary motivation for going to war.

Personally, I don't think the threat of weapons of mass destruction was their primary motivation for war, but it was the easiest to sell to the American people. I find the primary motivations to go to war with Iraq were two-fold: 1) To establish greater long-term stability within the Middle East and 2) To secure oil.

At the time of the Iraq invasion, there were two democracies in the Middle East: Afghanistan and Israel. This kind of situation does not bread stability. The Middle East is a part of the world with a long and storied history of conflict and hatred. It is also a strategically important part of the globe. This is why it becomes America's interest to stabilize the region. Let's look at the map:



It is interesting to note that Iran is now sandwiched between two democracies.

Though both of these claims were used as the main excuse for invasion at different times. After both of them were proven to be baseless, the reason then became liberation of Iraqi people. I'm not saying that this was not an intention all along, more that it wasn't the main reason for occupation covered in the media. And even then the irony is that it's hard to feel liberated as a people when you have foreign occupants in your country.

For the accuracy of claims made pre-war, I would refer you to this document by the Council on Foreign Relations:

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?

Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism. The question of Iraq’s link to terrorism grew more urgent with Saddam’s suspected determination to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which Bush administration officials feared he might share with terrorists who could launch devastating attacks against the United States.

Was Saddam involved in the September 11 attacks?

There is no hard evidence linking Saddam to the attacks, and Iraq denies involvement. Many commentators have noted that Baghdad failed to express sympathy for the United States after the attacks.

Does Iraq have ties with al-Qaeda?

The Bush administration insists that hatred of America has driven the two closer together, although many experts say there’s no solid proof of such links and argue that the Islamist al-Qaeda and Saddam’s secular dictatorship would be unlikely allies.

Has Iraq ever used weapons of mass destruction?

Yes. In the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, Iraqi troops repeatedly used poison gas, including mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin, against Iranian soldiers. Iranian officials have also accused Iraq of dropping mustard-gas bombs on Iranian villages. Human Rights Watch reports that Iraq frequently used nerve agents and mustard gas against Iraqi Kurds living in the country’s north. In March 1988, Saddam’s forces reportedly killed thousands of Iraqi Kurds in the town of Halabja with chemical weapons.

Source: Council on Foreign Relations

If we're working under the idea of self defense then the argument is really in the vein of a "It's coming right for us" shoot first, ask later mentality. Because potentially you could label any country as a potential future threat but this should not be grounds for occupation.

Well, the war was certainly not fought for the short-term stability of the United States. Iraq posed no imminent threat to our country, although it may have posed an imminent threat to Israel (another issue). The war was in the interest of long-term stability in the Middle East, and in turn benefiting the long-term stability of the United States.