Whence Iraq?

Washington Post: U.S. Decision On Iraq Has Puzzling Past. "The decision to confront Iraq was in many ways a victory for a small group of conservatives who, at the start of the administration, found themselves outnumbered by more moderate voices in the military and the foreign policy bureaucracy. Their tough line on Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001, was embraced quickly by President Bush and Vice President Cheney after the attacks. But that shift was not communicated to opponents of military action until months later, when the internal battle was already decided."

But while the "war on terrorism" changed the administration's line on war with Iraq, it isn't obvious why that would be the case. Iraq has not been convincing linked to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and you don't hear the White House using that as a reason anymore. What I see, rather, is a White House that hasn't really thought things thru very well, and had its agenda on Iraq driven by a few hardliners that had very different reasons for wanting to go to war. Bush was an easy sell on this new policy, since he had very personal reasons for wanting to get rid of Saddam.

Now, we are told, the issue is weapons of mass destruction. But even there, it remains unclear what actually justifies war. The administration says it knows Iraq has such weapons, but it refuses to offer public proof. Indeed, according to another story in the Post today, proof is irrelevant: "'The idea that the inspectors have to find something, or that we have to show them where to go to find something' is incorrect, the [senior administration] official said."

So the US prepares for war, and seems unable or unwilling to give a clear and coherent reason why. Is there such a reason? Perhaps, but we certainly haven't heard it yet from the Bush administration, and perhaps we never will. What a mess.