The bully, the barren and the scapegoat
A confronting exploration into the real causes of the 2003 invasion of Iraq
Iraqi links with al Qaeda
When the National Security Council met at Camp David on September 15, 2001, the now disgraced head of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz argued that "it is not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding [the terrorists] accountable, but removing the sanctuaries [and] ending states that sponsor terrorism."Ã¯Â¿Â½ It was argued, that an equally powerful act was needed to appease the American peoples' drive for vengeance and retribution for the horrors of 9/11.Ã¯Â¿Â½ America's ego was wounded. They needed to reaffirm their global dominance. Afghanistan was evidently not going to satisfy this hunger. Consequently, Iraq was nominated as an ideal target.
The invasion of Iraq was originally justified as part of the US-led War on Terrorism. President Bush argued that, "States like [Iraq], and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.'Ã¯Â¿Â½
The Bush administration raised concerns about the potential of terrorist organisations attaining WMDs from the Iraqi dictator, affirming that Sadaam's "outlaw regime pose[s] a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States."Ã¯Â¿Â½ The Bush Administration employed classic fear-mongering tactics, warning the world that America had to act to prevent "the day of horror."Ã¯Â¿Â½
On the basis that one of the al Qaeda members involved in the 1993 World Trade Centre attacks, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was an Iraqi resident, the Bush Government attempted to construct links between Iraq and al Qaeda. They suggested that the Hussein regime had been financially supporting Yasin. This claim was, however, in direct conflict with the 1995 and 1996, FBI and CIA investigations which concluded that the Hussein Government...