by Justin Barnes

Created on: February 22, 2007   Last Updated: April 19, 2007

This is an interesting question because there are a lot of different facets to the issue, and it is made more complicated by our feelings about the current situation in Iraq and the fact that some of us believe we were misled about the reasons for going to war. Here is a look at what I see are the primary possible rationales for invading Iraq and how they hold up under scrutiny.

1.) We'll start first by assessing the relative danger Saddam Hussein might have posed to the U.S. since that was the stated rationale at the time. First off, we know that he was not a direct military threat because Iraq has never had the capability to attack the U.S. directly. However, there is the possibility that he sought to harm the U.S. through more covert means, such as assisting Al-Qaeda with weapons, funds, etc. The most notable detail about this possibility is that we know Iraq has used WMDs multiple times in the past. The main danger of course would be that these weapons might be sold or given to Al-Qaeda for use on the U.S. or the West in general. As it turns out, there were no WMDs found in Iraq and moreover, the supposed link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda was based on intelligence that according to U.S. and British intelligence officials, was of very questionable reliability. The general accusation is that members of the Bush administration cherry-picked intelligence to suit their agenda rather than analyzing it objectively. Now I am not a big fan of President Bush, but I cannot blame him completely for the intelligence misstep because as the President, he is often at the mercy of what his aides and advisers choose to give him. In addition, we almost never know all the things we would like to know when we make a big decision, yet we make them anyway based on our best knowledge of the situation. The president is no different than the average person in this respect, except that his decisions often have ramifications for millions of people.

With that, I hope that I've established that I am not a Bush-hater, but I do have a couple of criticisms of his judgment regarding the Iraqi threat. What would the motive be? Saddam Hussein was a sectarian dictator concerned with his own power and ego, not a religious zealot. He may have used religious references from time to time, but the fact is, he was no friend to Islamic fundamentalists because their cause threatened his own power. So what else might have motivated Saddam to be involved in attacking the U.S.? Revenge for the first Gulf

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next Page >>