And probably justifiably.
Jonathan Stein and Tim Dickinson make the point that some of us have been making since the World Trade Center fell: If we become a nation motivated mainly by fear, we will become a militaristic police state.
But the blame for Iraq does not end with Cheney, Bush, or Rumsfeld. Nor is it limited to the intelligence operatives who sat silent as the administration cherry-picked its case for war, or with those, like Colin Powell or Hans Blix, who, in the name of loyalty or statesmanship, did not give full throat to their misgivings. It is also shared by far too many in the Fourth Estate, most notably the New York Times’ Judith Miller. But let us not forget that it lies, inescapably, with we the American people, who, in our fear and rage over the catastrophic events of September 11, 2001, allowed ourselves to be suckered into the most audacious bait and switch of all time.
Welcome to the party.
Read the essay here: Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Well… Yes and No. There are multiple reasons for the Iraq war and indeed every war. Very rarely do we see things in the world of black and white. It’s actually easy to create a war like this and the US populace courtesy of living in a modern free society have short term memories. Contentment breeds memory loss and the USA was not subject to actual world events.
The best example is the US support of Pakistan despite their own forces reporting that Afghan insurgents were armed suspiciously well for an allegedly rag tag militia. Never mind the whole history of Pakistan supporting terror groups is well documented and indeed part of a fairly major trial involving an american citizen called David Headley who is wanted in India for the Mumbai Hotel attacks.
Everyone involved is to blame. From american voters to british voters (remember the 20 minute dossier!). I would invoke some blame onto previous governments and the government of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Infact the entire war would not have been possible without the groundwork laid down by the previous war. I think the series of events that lead us down this road is so long and so convoluted that we really cannot appropriate blame to just one single source. Blaming the american public in a time of crisis and knee jerk reaction is pointless. Normal people behave like that, it’s wounded animal syndrome.
A simple example… Post Mumbai attacks there were serious calls from large sections of Mumbai to turn Pakistan to glass. They seriously were discussing an all out war to end Pakistan as a functioning entity because they were hurt and angry. They literally didn’t care what happened just so long as Pakistan got it’s Just Desserts…
And it’s that kind of feeling that was prevalent and when a few people provided a suitable target (Iraq) we went in there. The irritation? The real irritation was that we could do genuine good in Afghanistan which we didn’t because we faffed around with Iraq dragging resources out of Afghanistan.
In 2004 we had a chance to say it was Bush and Cheney’s war. After that we definitely owned it.
In fairness it was also at least 50% Saddam Hussein’s fault I think.
Saddam chose to keep bluffing that he had WMDs and refused to really comply with what was demianded of him by the UN and Saddam also turned down the cghance he and his depraved sons were given to go into exile and avoid war.
SteveR: There was an international team of inspectors in Iraq. Saddam would give them a hard time, they’d go to the UN/US/etc for pressure they’d get the pressure, Saddam would yield. At no point, IIRC, did the UN inspectors feel that there was a need to invade to find WMD’s they thought were there.
Not to say that Saddam wasn’t a jerk, but having the most costly war in a century/ever/whatever was an inappropriate response and has contributed to putting the world’s economy at risk, and continued or even enhanced the idea that settling differences in the Middle East is best/only done with force.
There may have been many reasons given for the Iraq War, but most of them were entirely bogus. It wasn’t difficult to see that either at the time or now in retrospect. Literally millions of people will no special access to secret intelligence were able to see through the lies to the truth that this was all about controlling the oil fields. The fact that so many people in the US were willing to accept the lies as truth no matter what the evidence does indeed make them culpable. Those who willfully chose to silence the voices of those warning that the emperors had no clothes cannot now revise history for their self-serving needs. At some point you have to take responsibility for your actions (or inaction, as the case may be). It’s part of being an adult.
I find it greatly amusing that someone would preface an enitrely unfair comment with the phrase, “in fairness.” Saddam was 100% culpable of being a brutal, ruthless dictator. The guy eating a burger and texting while he speeds down the highway is indeed a terrible driver, but after you shoot him in a rage, you can’t go to the judge and claim he’s 50% responsible for you pulling out your gun. The US is 100% culpable of launching a brutal, needless war based on false preimses, killing thousands upon thousands of Iraqis, on top of the misery we already visited on Iraq prior to the war through sanctions. Those who submitted to the lies in willful ignorance are responsible because we live in a democracy.
The weapons inspectors were getting intelligence from the US and other countries as to likely locations of WMDs. Everytime they checked out those locations they found nothing. That alone should have given Bush and Blair cause to doubt the intelligence they were being given.
Move a step away from the Iraqi war, into a more directly terrorism related subject, the current kerfluffle about NDAA.
People can say what they want to say. I think politicians really do have a good handle on the situation, in that if another terrorist attack occurred, enough of the public (especially so-called moderates or “swing” voters) would be up in arms that politicians who didn’t do everything in their power to fight terrorism would be thrown out of office.
Actually, on issue after issue, (virtually every issue) politicians from both parties try to act in a fashion that would make this demographic happy. This is commonly seen among pols where elections are won and lost. This is why I think calls of corruption are often misplaced. There is a target demographic for all these things.
I’ve argued with many of fellow Americans about the Iraq invasion and war, and my impression is that most supported it. In fact, we know they did: that’s why Dubya was re-selected.
Yes, they were lied to about it, but most just didn’t care enough to investigate for themselves. Nor did they want to listen to anyone who knew a bit about the situation. ‘Those people over there’ was close enough — teach those ragheads that we’re not going to take it (meaning 9/11). Most simply did not care that we were going to bomb the wrong people, people that had nothing to do with 9/11.
WMD? Sure, that’s a good reason, too.
Spreading democracy? Uh yeah, that’ll do, too. Actually, pretty much any excuse is good enough.
It’s hard to beat us Americans for warmongering. We love it.
(Most present company excepted)
“And probably justifiably.”
Probably?
Probably because people may argue over the specific nature of the responsibility.