4 ms·

Call me naive, but I think it was Junior surrounding himself with folks who wanted him to finish the job that Pops started. I think they (like most who start w

Call me naive, but I think it was Junior surrounding himself with folks who wanted him to finish the job that Pops started. I think they (like most who start wars) dramatically underestimating the costs and complexity. I'm less inclined to believe that it has to do with gassing their own people (why start caring now?) or going to the Euro. But I do agree with the above points that we spend an awful lot of time fighting symptoms, when we don't worry nearly enough about ridding ourselves of oil dependency. Energy independence is a long out problem with a lot of vested interests lined up against it - this is precisely the type of investment that does warrant government funding.

mturmon 13y ago
According to those who interviewed the principal decision makers, your "naive" belief is roughly correct. For example, from Mark Danner's recent article (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/mar/06/darkness-dick-cheney/?insrc=hpma http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/mar/06/darknes...) -- "According to those attending National Security Council meetings in the days after September 11, The primary impetus for invading Iraq…was to make an example of [Saddam] Hussein, to create a demonstration model to guide the behavior of anyone with the temerity to acquire destructive weapons or, in any way, flout the authority of the United States." In other words, single out one of the bullies, attack him, knock him out, and by so doing, scare the rest of the bullies. I'm not saying it was either a good idea or an effective idea, but such was was the strategic thinking (if we can call it that).
- mathattack 13y ago
  It was strategic thinking. One could argue whether it worked or not, but it was an application of game theory to international relations.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Call me naive, but I think it was Junior surrounding himself with folks who wanted him to finish the job that Pops started. Given that those same people spent much of the Clinton Administration advocating for war on Iraq from outside of government, its a pretty good bet that that was part of the reason. Though, to be fair, there's plenty of reason to consider that the "job that Pops started" was itself about oil, and that insofar as Iraq was targetted as an example to others, one of the reasons the particular example was chosen is because Iraq -- to borrow one of those vary same Bush II war cheerleaders description of why North Korea was treated differently than Iraq -- "floats on a sea of oil".
brc 13y ago
I would say brinkmanship and groupthink are a much more likely explanation than theories about defense spending or oil production or currencies, which fall flat on analysis. Not to say that people didn't make hay with government contracts, but there are easier ways to swindle public cash than to get high-placed politicians to start wars. It also leaves out a very significant factor : vote winning. Patriotism wins elections, because it, in of itself, is just another form of groupthink.
- bobsil1 13y ago
  >there are easier ways If you're a military contractor, a military buildup or war is optimal.

mturmon 13y ago

According to those who interviewed the principal decision makers, your "naive" belief is roughly correct. For example, from Mark Danner's recent article (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/mar/06/darkness-dick-cheney/?insrc=hpma http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/mar/06/darknes...) -- "According to those attending National Security Council meetings in the days after September 11, The primary impetus for invading Iraq…was to make an example of [Saddam] Hussein, to create a demonstration model to guide the behavior of anyone with the temerity to acquire destructive weapons or, in any way, flout the authority of the United States." In other words, single out one of the bullies, attack him, knock him out, and by so doing, scare the rest of the bullies. I'm not saying it was either a good idea or an effective idea, but such was was the strategic thinking (if we can call it that).

mathattack 13y ago
It was strategic thinking. One could argue whether it worked or not, but it was an application of game theory to international relations.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Call me naive, but I think it was Junior surrounding himself with folks who wanted him to finish the job that Pops started. Given that those same people spent much of the Clinton Administration advocating for war on Iraq from outside of government, its a pretty good bet that that was part of the reason. Though, to be fair, there's plenty of reason to consider that the "job that Pops started" was itself about oil, and that insofar as Iraq was targetted as an example to others, one of the reasons the particular example was chosen is because Iraq -- to borrow one of those vary same Bush II war cheerleaders description of why North Korea was treated differently than Iraq -- "floats on a sea of oil".

brc 13y ago

I would say brinkmanship and groupthink are a much more likely explanation than theories about defense spending or oil production or currencies, which fall flat on analysis. Not to say that people didn't make hay with government contracts, but there are easier ways to swindle public cash than to get high-placed politicians to start wars. It also leaves out a very significant factor : vote winning. Patriotism wins elections, because it, in of itself, is just another form of groupthink.

bobsil1 13y ago
>there are easier ways If you're a military contractor, a military buildup or war is optimal.