"Thus, my argument is that the purpose of the war was war; it was designed to keep alive an idea of old war on which American identity is based, to show that old war could be upgraded and relatively pain-free in the 21st century. I do not want to suggest that this was cynical manipulation; on the contrary the conservatives in the Bush administration believe in American power and their mission to spread the American idea. My point is rather that they are caught up in a narrative of their own making, which resonates well with the American public with the help of the American media.
[...]
There have also been moments in the aftermath of the invasion when there were genuine opportunities to establish a legitimate Iraqi government. Immediately after the invasion, if the coalition had:
* not dissolved the armyThen, there was a chance that the insurgency might have been avoided. In the aftermath of the invasion, there was a myriad of civic initiatives - neighbourhood watch groups protecting their communities against looting, museum employees protecting valuable artefacts, various forms of social and humanitarian initiatives. Subsequently, debate and dialogue among students, women's groups, newly formed democracy groups, or religious institutions blossomed but many of those engaged in this debate felt marginalised and neglected by the coalition authorities."
* rapidly introduced a system of transitional justice so that the criminals of the previous regime could have been separated from ordinary Baathists
* consulted with different political, civil, religious and tribal groups on the ground instead of relying primarily on a collection of expatriate consultants and advisors
* allowed the Interim Governing Council to exercise real power.
-
-
So it's possible that Saddam wasn't as securely in power as everyone, both for and against the war, was led to believe. It's possible that in some behind-the-scenes estimate it was only a matter of time until he was overthrown, and by the same people who now are driving the US out of Iraq. Think how powerful that would have made them.
It's possible that this was a pre-emptive measure, an end-run around that overthrowing and the surge of triumph it would have brought.
It's possible that the current state of Iraq was desired - the chaos and broken infrastructure, the political impotence of the Iraqi state, these have seemed plausible goals from the beginning. Oil is there, murky and important but not central, not to the US, not as a reason to do what's been done to the American reputation in the world and at home.
It's a missing piece, for me, in the puzzle this has been. That Saddam was tenuous, that he was going down anyway.
The general view of Iraqi society makes civil war seem like an inevitabity without the iron fist of Saddam there, or without some other unifying force to contain the fierce religious anarchy of Sunni vs. Shia vs. Baathist vs. Kurd.
But then toppling Saddam would have been a pretty unifying thing for Iraq, and whoever did it would have then been seen as true liberators by the Iraqi people because, as we all know, Saddam was a despot, a cruel tyrant.
So it's possible that scenario, impending revolution, was the impetus, the charge; some kind of urgent forecast that said it's coming, and soon.
