According to those who interviewed the principal decision makers, your "naive" belief is roughly correct. For example, from Mark Danner's recent article (http:

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).