Arthur Silber: Where We Are

August 19th, 2005

Much hand-wringing about what to do about Iraq. More hand-wringing here. Atrios has a better idea, but that’s not going to do much good in the end either.

Robert Higgs, who knows more than many of us about Leviathan and how it works, considers the administration’s recent “leaked” admissions that it has “lowered its sights” significantly in Iraq and notes how “shocking” those admissions are in light of the administration’s earlier position—and he then examines the all-important question:

Which brings us back to the question, why did the Bush team invade Iraq? The most plausible hypothesis has always appeared to be that it did so as part of a larger plan to reshape the strategic contours of southwest Asia, from the Mediterranean to China, from Kazakhstan to the Arabian Sea. By lodging U.S. forces in the heart of this region, in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States would be well positioned to launch future attacks on, say, Syria or Iran, should the president and his lieutenants decide to do so. Even without such further attacks, however, the Americans would be able to threaten credibly or to intimidate countries in the region to secure their compliance with U.S. demands.