Form: Argument

Q: “What was the purpose of the Iraq war in 2003?”
Dishonest Question. Common Knowledge:
1) Iraq invaded Kuwait. US/NATO/UN forces expunged Iraq from Kuwait. Imposed sanctions. And the forces developed a policy of Containment.
2) Iraq challenged the no-fly zone, weapons inspectors, and sanctions. And an insurgency began. Forcing US to maintain its presence to prevent a repetition of Iraqi aggression in the region. (Note: In retrospect, Iraq was able to keep Iran contained, and we should have had lower ambitions for the Region, and only defended Kuwait.)
3) General consensus was that US ended the operation without replacing Saddam Hussein. And that regime change was necessary.
4) (At this time, intellectuals in the west (Neocons) believed that the Muslim world was ready for democratic government and that Iraq could be the template that would encourage the new generations to end despotic rule. The failure of this belief, and its confirmation in Afghanistan, ended western belief in the ability of Muslim governments to maintain democratic rule of law. When the US discovered it had sufficient oil for autarkic energy, it rapidly decided to abandon the ME to its wars, and left it to North Africa, the Kingdoms, and Israel versus Iran and allies versus Turkey to compete for leadership. Though this exposed our allies in Europe to petroleum risk. It put the most risk on China which is strategically dependent upon gulf oil production.)
5) In the broader context, the attack on the US in September 2001, deeply affected American conservatives, who increasingly felt that Al Queda should be exterminated. So American Intel ‘saw al Queda everywhere.’ (Which was only half false.)
6) The US retaliated first against Afghanistan, to deprive terrorists of a safe home.
7) The USG, frustrated with Iraq, developed a policy of liberation of the people of Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny. This was amplified by intelligence suggesting Iraq had WMD (Which was false. It was intentionally false b/c Iraq was afraid of Iran, and had created convincing intel.) Having used WMD on Kurds, (which alone was enough to cause the USA to replace Saddam) the administration believed it was true. (Or maybe wished it was true enough to believe it was true we don’t know.)
8) So the combination of incentives encouraged the Neocons to try to ‘solve the problem of the middle east’. And congress funded the movement to ‘liberate iraq’. And then set about to reform Iraq.
9) Lessons learned of course, are that:
(a) as Al Queda’s leadership had hoped, their terrorism did cause the west to attack the middle east. But neither side won.
(b) It’s not possible for Islamic civilization to convert to peaceful modernity except incrementally by generational replacement over multiple generations. And demographically it may be impossible altogether, given that the ME has an average IQ of 84, meaning half of the population is incapable of industrial-age employment, reason, logic, and science. And 2/3 of the population are under 100 enough that they’re not capable of what Europeans consider basic logic. Islamic memorization and authoritarianism may be the best they can achieve.
(c) There is no longer any value of peace in the ME, because the more chaos in world markets the more profitable for the USA and the worse for China. Instead, the only concern is prohibiting nuclear proliferation (Iran). the Only US concern is the stability of Europe, our east Asian partners, and Israel. (and yes Israel is a complex question, but they are also the only advanced civ in the region.)
(d) Americans are no longer willing to sacrifice our laboring, working, and middle classes, and it may no longer be necessary, because all the people capable of entering modernity (industrial technological employment) may have been converted. So the age of prosperity taking advantage of reserves of human capital may have ended.
(e) So, back to “America First” whenever Europe is safe again.
(Lots of the world will starve)
-FIN-