That's the reason that makes the most sense. I've only ever heard that reason given here on the Cellar, and even then it was a year or two after the war began that I first heard it presented here. There's a certain amount of revisionist history going on with that reason, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

I think the problem is that the government can't accomplish it's objectives effectively while showing all it's cards on the table; but, without some reasonable explanation for our very expensive actions, they cannot get the support of the public that is needed to continue.

That's a tough tightrope to walk, but I've found the problem with this war to be an utter failure to provide any rational-sounding reason whatsoever for it's necessity.

We could have started off the whole thing by saying "We need to establish some military bases in the region, to protect our interests, so we're toppling this dictator (which nobody will weep for) and setting up camp right here, like it or not." But instead... well you all know what happened.

Well, it's been out in the open on the PNAC website since Clinton was in office, and the PNAC members populated Bush's administration extensively. But they never explicitly acknowledged it, AFAIK. Possibly in part due to Bush's campaign derision of "nation building".

In hindsight we can maybe connect the dots a bit, but at the time the nation was headed for war, I don't recall a single person talking about building a pro-democracy country in the middle of the region as a base for our troops.

So instead we're bungling through a war that people don't support because it hasn't been explained to them - and this is because we were ashamed to admit our real reasons? That's fucking insane. I've been saying all along: just tell us what the reasons are! We already know, just say it out loud!
I was. More than "a single person" was talking about it. PNAC has some very high-profile members, and they are not the slightest bit secretive.

Gotta give you points for that answer.

I'm curious: is Islam the problem?

I've posted the Steven denBeste strategic overview many times in response to this thread's question... I think even before March 03. Most of it still applies, and still shows the framework for the decisions, even if the decisions were wrong.

Are you the spokesman for the US government, that explains to the population why we need to go to war and spend billions of dollars?

Islam is definitely not the problem.

Fundamentalist Islam is, because as a school of thought, it has adopted (or more likely inherited from Stalinism) a violent bloodlusty streak that civilization will not permit to go on in the long run.

F, I'm just some guy and I get a lot wrong, but since 9/11 I've been paying hard attention and doing all the assigned readings.

Foreign policy is a big difficult chess game. You know, you wouldn't talk out loud as you were deciding what chess move to make. "Let's see, if I move my rook here, you'll take my queen in two moves..."

And I wouldn't trust this President to describe what he had for breakfast correctly, let alone develop a comprehensive false-but-accurate explanation, including all the head-fakes you need to convince France something is a good idea.

In the end, the right way to decide on this, no matter what the complicated purpose is, is to look at the results. Which are poor, and too expensive in lives and money and worldwide respect.

I suspect that you [we] are in Iraq because, in some way that I have yet to discern, it was considered by the Bush administration to be politically expedient.

Undertoad: He's just this guy, you know?

The only thing I can think of is that the government doesn't want us to know the real reason. Also, I can't see it being one sole reason either.

I don't think it is fighting terrorists because we left Afghanistan to burn.

If you believe in the NWO, us staying in Iraq and attacking Iran fits in nicely.

Terrorism. Thanks for bringing it up. I hear sentences that start with Iraq and end with Terrorism. No connecting idea is offered.

The original neocon notion was that reforming Iraq would accelerate reforms in other countries, a sort of domino theory as pressures are put on theocratic rulers in the region. As of now it looks exactly wrong, as it accelerates sectarian instincts in the people, which precisely fails to solve the problem.

The question is, if you destroy the original Al Qaeda - including getting bin Laden - does that make the civilized world safe from islamist terrorism? Or is a bigger solution needed?

Seems to me almost everyone on both left and right believed in a bigger solution to address "root causes" - they disagreed on what those root causes are, because they come from different schools of thought.

Anyway, Iraq is the bigger solution that the right came up with to address the bigger problem of islamist terrorism.