The reason Bush went to war with Iraq was sheer political gain. In the wake of the horrific events of nine-eleven, Bush's reasons (that's right, he already had reasons) for war with Iraq had a new angle - international terrorism. Bush, actually chief executive Dick Cheney, politicked his way to equating the events of nine-eleven and the proposed war with Iraq in the eyes of a plurality of Americans through the media (not only the far-right publications, but notable liberal journalistic publications, e.g., the New York Times, as well).
Weapons of mass destruction was touted as the principal rationale for the proposed war with Iraq. Chemical, biological, and nuclear attacks may be launched against the U.S. (and on her soil) if the Bush administration did not act immediately, the media reported. Bush was fortunate to not have mounting political pressure against the proposed war in the months following the events of nine-eleven. However, it did take the president over a year to get his planned war with Iraq through Congress. The Congress's bill has been debated over it's meaning. Some see it as a vote to go to war, and others see it as a vote to go to the United Nations for international assistance. When stymied by the United Nations Security Council, the Bush administration rebuked the council for its decision and declared war on Iraq.
Additional rationales for the Iraq war were given, e.g., overthrowing a ruthless dictator and freeing the Iraqi people from his rule. The military buildup and the wealth it creates was a cause for war with Iraq. Oil and energy businesses were also prospected to generate high revenues with a war against an oil-rich nation. Oil was a cause for war with Iraq.
As evidence over the next two years, following a two-month military engagement with Iraq, would show that Iraq did not possess or was readily able to manufacture chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, the Bush administration's rationale for war with Iraq, through the eyes of the media, drew harsh criticism.
A new principal rationale was touted. Spreading democracy is the mission of the U.S., and democracy is an antidote to terrorism. As terrorist attacks grew to all-time high levels, Bush's democracy-sheds-terror maxim fell flat.
The Bush administration used an emotional paradox to win election to a second four-year term. A vote against is a vote for weakness, running away. A vote for is a vote for strength, staying the course. In it's runup to the war with Iraq, the Bush administration utilized the opposite analysis for the same purpose. A vote against is a vote for the terrorists; a vote for is a vote for freedom. Bush understood well that the nation would tend to vote for the incumbent during war-time. (The war had actually been declared over more than a year prior.) The Bush administration politically linked a vote against Bush is a vote for terror.
The war with Iraq was a distraction from the war on terror. The war was not a front of the war on terror; the war was a front for grand wealth-making machines. The perpetrators of the horrific events on nine-eleven are still at-large. The threat has not been neutralized. The threat has only grown. Engaging an enemy with a massive unified front will yield positive results. Engaging an unknown enemy with unknown resources in a hasty ill-prepared fashion is a recipe for disaster. The Bush administration's war with Iraq, and the Bush administration's handling of post-war occupancy, has been an utter disaster.
