Saddam: The questions that will live on
>From Andrew Buncombe in Washington

The Independent/UK
30 December 2006

So why did George Bush decide to invade Iraq? Nearly four years and
hundreds of thousands of casualties later, the reasons appear both as
obvious and as elusive as they were in the spring of 2003.

The official reasoning was always straightforward. Key among the
claims included in the so-called Iraq War Resolution passed by
Congress in October 2002 was that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to
the national security of the United States and international peace and
security in the Persian Gulf region". It added that Saddam’s regime
harboured chemical and biological weapons and was seeking to develop a
nuclear arsenal.

In an address to the nation just three days before the invasion, Mr
Bush declared: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments
leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

It quickly became clear that central claim was not true, and it became
equally clear the administration had been manipulating uncertain and
"caveated" intelligence to make the case for a war that had been
decided on long before. The famous Downing Street memo suggests that
as early as July 2002 " intelligence and facts were being fixed around
the policy". Indeed, within hours of the attacks of 9/11, senior
elements within the administration were seeking for a strike against
Iraq even though there was no evidence it was involved.

But if the alleged threat of WMD was based on manipulated intelligence
` some provided by Iraqi exiles such as Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National
Congress – what else motivated the US? Many remain convinced the
overwhelming factor was a desire to control Iraq’s oil supplies, the
second largest proven reserves in the world. Such a view has been
reinforced by recent recommendations of Iraq Study Group which said: "
The United States should assist Iraqi leaders to reorganise the
national oil industry as a commercial enterprise, in order to enhance
efficiency, transparency, and accountability."

Veteran dissident Noam Chomsky said: "It is glaringly obvious that
Iraq is estimated to have the second largest energy reserves in the
world and is right at the heart of the world’s major energy producing
region, and that establishing a client state in Iraq would
considerably enhance policies that go back to the dawn of the oil age,
and in particular to the post-war period when the US was taking over
global domination, and established as a very high and natural policy
principle the need to control this `stupendous source of strategic
power’."

He added: "It takes remarkable obedience to authority to believe that
the US would have ‘liberated’ Iraq – or taken revenge – if its main
exports were lettuce and pickles, and the major petroleum resources
were in the South Pacific."

Some point out that a desire among some in government to oust Saddam
predated 9/11, and suggest in the aftermath of those attacks, a
climate existed in which it was easier to pursue an invasion. Indeed,
among the signatories to the 1998 letter from the neo-con Project for
the New American Century calling on President Clinton to take on
Saddam were former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy,
Paul Wolfowitz.

Mr Wolfowitz later said Saddam’s alleged possession of WMD was just
one of many reasons for invading. "For bureaucratic reasons, we
settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the
one reason everyone could agree on," he said.

David Swanson, a founder of afterdowningstreet.org, a coalition of
peace and activist groups, said: "The one thing we know is that the
reasons they told us were false. [I think] they wanted an Iraq that
looked free but isn’t and they wanted to control it¿They wanted
the oil and the power that comes with controlling that oil and making
profits for British and US oil companies."

Did other factors influence Mr Bush? Was he seeking revenge against
"the guy who tried to kill my dad" ` a reference to an alleged plot to
kill the president’s father during a visit to Kuwait in 1993 or was
there even a broader strategic rationale, one that would benefit
Israel ` something claimed by peace activist Cindy Sheehan.

What does seem certain is that there was a confluence of factors and
interests coming together in the aftermath of 9/11 that allowed Mr
Bush to proceed to war with little opposition from the Congress, or
indeed, the media.