Counterexample

By Crispin Sartwell

One way to figure out why the Bush administration invaded Iraq is to pull the usual investigation, or find the memo that says "quick, manufacture some intelligence. Here's why."

Another is to deal with the way the administration behaves in similar cases and proceed by process of elimination. Here goes.

Possible motives:

(1) We really thought they had weapons of mass destruction, and presented a threat to Israel, other nations in the region and to us.

Counterexample: North Korea. It's much better and more obviously stocked with WMDs than Saddam ever was. And if you think that Saddam was irrational and unpredictable, contemplate Kim Jong-Il for a bit. And let's throw in Iran as well. Forget crudely forged invoices for enriched uranium: these people are *telling* you they are making bombs. In fact, given our usual response, one might be forgiven for thinking that one reason the administration attacked Iraq is that it knew they *didn't* have any WMDs. Actual weapons have Rumsfeld noting that it's never too late for diplomacy.

(2) We really thought that Saddam was linked to al Qaeda.

Counterexample: Iran. As Powell made his case at the UN, he resorted to the most obvious fallacies, including the mere fact that an al Qaeda operative was in Baghdad and that al Qaeda may have operated a training camp in Iraq (though, as he glossed over, not in a part of Iraq that Saddam controlled). The 9.11 Commission reported far more extensive connections between al Qaeda and Iran.

(3) We did it for the Iraqi people because we're idealist liberators, lovers of freedom and bringers of democracy.

Counterexample: Sudan. What's happened in the Sudan in the last few months at least equals the depredations of the whole 25-year Saddam regime. The Sudanese government is sponsoring murder, rape, the burning of villages, starvation, and so on. Like the rest of the world, we appear to be content with issuing a strongly worded memo. Indeed, there are vicious dictatorships the world over; with many of them we're quite cuddly. Cf. Uzbekistan.

At a minimum, the motivations claimed by the Bush administration are incapable of moving them to action in similar or much clearer cases. Under such conditions, it would be bizarre to think they motivated the attack in Iraq.

Looking at it the other way round, were the administration sincere in the reasons they gave for invading Iraq, then consistency requires them to invade North Korea, Iran, and Sudan. In every instance the reasons are the same, the case much more compelling.

So, why did we invade Iraq? I don't know. Iraq has oil reserves that the lands ruled by other vicious regimes lack. Maybe the administration thought we needed a bit of a pickmeup after 9.11. Maybe Bush was irritated because Saddam once tried to have his Dad killed. Maybe Halliburton needed some contracts. Maybe they just felt like killing people. Sometimes I feel like that too.

You got me, really. All I'm saying is that it manifestly had nothing to do with the threat posed to the Middle East, the threat posed to us, or the threat posed to the Iraqis themselves.

Crispin Sartwell teaches political science at Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA.