Why we went to war with Iraq, v10.3

Ok, so I'm not entirely sure how many different reasons we've been given now (none of which have stuck long enough to actually be considered "the Truth"), but we're shifting the focus once again. Now, Bush and his aides are stressing that the war in Iraq is just the start of our effort to shape the Middle East into an image we like better than what they've chosen for themselves.

In an interview yesterday, a senior administration official expanded on that theme, saying the United States has embarked on a "generational commitment" to Iraq similar to its efforts to transform Germany in the decades after World War II.

The Bush aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, outlined a long-term strategy in which the United States would spread its values through Iraq and the Middle East much as it transformed Europe in the second half of the 20th century. As outlined, the U.S. commitment to Iraq and the Middle East would be far more expansive than the administration had described to the public and the world before the Iraq war.

"The great goal for the United States after 9/11 is worthy of a country of the importance and the power of the United States," the adviser said. "That goal is to see the spread of our values and to understand that our values and our security are inextricably linked, much as they were in Europe, but they are also linked in the Middle East."

The vision described by the official represents a change in the administration's emphasis in describing the U.S. purpose in Iraq. Before the war, Bush at times stressed the limits of the mission, promising to "remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more." At that time, Bush justified the conflict largely by asserting the need to strip Hussein of chemical and biological weapons and disrupt his nuclear ambitions.

The notion of a free Iraq as a catalyst for change in the region is not new. In a Feb. 26 speech at the American Enterprise Institute, Bush said: "A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions."

More recently, in a speech in London a month ago, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice compared the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon to Pearl Harbor. Rice urged Europeans to expand on the defeat of Hussein's government by turning "to the Middle East with the same vision, determination and patience that we exhibited in building a united transatlantic community after 1945."

While that notion was low on the original list of reasons for war, it has largely replaced the "weapons of mass destruction" as justification.

Back when Bush was first promoting his idea of a War or Terrorism&Trade; he made a comment about this being a "crusade" - something that made many in the Middle East angry and uneasy, because it brought up the spectre of the Crusades, where Christians came in and tried to wipe out the religion of Islam and the culture that goes along with it.

When we start talking about how we need to spread "our values" to the Middle East - especially when the President has made it clear that the values he considers to be the most legitimate are so-called "Christian values" (though many of them actually belong to several faiths and other schools of thought) - can we really expect the Muslims who live there to think we mean anything other than another Crusade?

Even if those promoting this idea of spreading "our values" to the Middle East don't put it in terms of spreading Christianity, and even if they talk about respecting Islam and the Islamic culture, they seem to have this notion that, just as the US (supposedly) has a distinction between a secular government and the spirituality of our citizens, the same kind of separation can be made in the Middle East. They don't seem to understand that for Muslims, their religion affects every aspect of their lives, including how the country is ruled.

As big of a probem as that is, though - and its a huge one, there's another one that needs to be addressed as well: Bush can't find WMD (and now he's not even looking for actual weapons any more, just evidence that there once was a WMD program), so they're trying to shift the focus once again - trying to find a way to justify the war in time for the election.

Bush and his administration need to be held to the reasons they gave us before the war - the very specific things he assured us made Saddam a threat that had to be eliminated immediately. They swore he had weapons - actual weapons, not just programs, but vats, barrels, tons, gallons, chemicals, germs, missiles, unmanned planes and reconstituted nuclear weapons (wait... did Dick ever make up his mind on that one?) We need to see them.