This is in part a response to John O'Callaghan's last post, but goes a bit beyond that. John thinks it was unfortunate that WMD was the main public justification for the invasion of Iraq, since we had ample justification in Iraq's violation of the 1991 cease fire terms. It seems to me that there were at least three main justifications, each emphasized by some part of the administration at various times: (a) the violation of the cease-fire (not used that extensively, but it was given as a reason by some); (b) the presence of WMD as (i) a specific violation of the cease-fire terms, (ii) a violation of the various UN resolutions concerning Iraqi WMD, and (iii) a general threat to the United States and its allies; and (c) the more grandiose regional strategy of democratizing the Middle East. While WMD was, I think, the most influential justification with the public and with the President (I cite again Bob Woodward's book, Plan of Attack, which emphasizes Dick Cheney's constant concern with the WMD issue). However, the democratization issue became increasingly visible in the president's speeches, leading finally to its central place in his Inaugural Address.

The democracy plan seems to be based on these premises: (a) terrorists who threaten the US mainly come from the Arab world; (b) the root causes of terrorism are political (not essentially religious) and stem from the fact that most Arab countries are tyrannies where political islam becomes attractive as a vehicle of opposition to tyrants seen as secular in addition to just being oppressive, and to a more generalized sense of injustice and inequality; (c) the solution to this is economic development and political reform--both tied to democracy; (d) Iraq is the best place to jump-start such a program, since (i) we have a reason to go in; (ii) Iraq is already more secular than other Arab countries; (iii) Iraq has a relatively more educated population, (iv) Iraq is big and centrally located and can thus be a center from which democratic ideas can spread out.

One can quarrel, I suppose, with all these premises, but they are not crazy. They constitute a geopolitical strategy that transcends the war itself, the immediate aim of which was simply to remove Saddam and end the WMD programs. The big question then concerns the possibilities for success of the larger strategy. And, can we see such a larger strategy as a just cause of war?