well, we all know this by now, i'm sure, so i think this will probably be the last article forwarded from me on this very specific discussion (don't want to beat a dead horse); anyone who still has doubts that the invasion/occupation had nothing at all to do w/sep 11, 2001, or about so-called weapons of mass destruction, should really do their own homework:
THE TRUE RATIONALE? IT'S A DECADE OLD
James Mann, Washington Post, 3/7/04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35472-2004Mar6.html
The Bush administration has offered a series of shifting justifications for
the war in Iraq. Each has been quite specific: The war was to uncover
Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction; to dislodge a brutal
dictator; to combat Iraq's support for terrorism; to deal with what
President Bush called a "grave and gathering threat."
Which was the real one? That's the overarching question that has dominated
public debate in recent months. But the question is too narrow. The
underlying rationale was both broader and more abstract: The war was
carried out in pursuit of a larger vision of using America's overwhelming
military superiority to shape the future.
The outlines of that vision were first sketched more than a decade ago,
immediately after the Soviet Union collapsed. Some of the most important
and bitterly debated aspects of the war in Iraq -- including the
administration's willingness to engage in preemptive military action -- can
be traced to discussions and documents from the early 1990s, when Pentagon
officials, under then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and then-Undersecretary
of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, led the way in forging a new, post-Cold War
military strategy for the United States.
The gist of the strategy they formulated was that the United States should
be the world's dominant superpower -- not merely today, or 10 years from
now, or when a rival such as China appears, but permanently. The elements
of this vision were couched in bland-sounding phrases: The United States
should "preserve its strategic depth" and should act overseas to "shape the
security environment." What could potentially flow from those vague words
was, however, anything but bland: The recent war in Iraq was, above all, an
effort to shape the security environment of the Middle East...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by shereen at March 10, 2004 12:23 AM