So why did we go to war?

Well nothing changed about Iraq particularly from September 10 2001 to September 11 2001. Sadaam's regime was a secular one. He wasn’t interested in religious fundamentalism. He suppressed it brutally. He was no friend of Bin Laden. So why Iraq? What did it have to do with this new fangled war on terrorism?

The key lies in perceptions. Specifically American perceptions. The world did not change - but many of those in the USA did. Or more specifically those who had long harbored ambitions within the administration to overthrow Sadaam were able to manipulate public opinion.

I fear that we may not be able to discuss these or related events with any significant incite until the perceived threat has passed. This is much like the cold war. So many bellicose utterances occurred during it, that were only seen as absurd after the event. Only once the cold war had ended could real more dispassionate analysis begin. We don't feel threatened by the Soviet Union so its become 'ok' to conceive of things that before would have been considered subversive.

The difficulty may be though that this war is a war without end. One can gage when war ends with a nation state. Ultimately one can occupy it or simply destroy its existence. But this war on terrorism is a war on a concept. It is like declaring war on 'struggle' absurd as that may sound. Unless human beings insist that war against a non state entity is no war at all, we may find ourselves at war for eternity. The definition of terrorism given by the current administration is that of a crime committed against people or property for non economic ends.

So why is the United States so bellicose about such a futile mission? Let me first say that it is difficult to talk about the United States having such a definite mindset. The people living in the territory in the United States are quite broad and diverse. And it sometimes becomes meaningless to talk about them in a collective way. In this instance I talk about a general feeling about much of the popular – ‘the red state people’.

The United States as a concept is relatively new. The collective imaginings of approximately 300 million people that fantasize about some super collective being is relatively new. And during its short duration other than during its war of independence and the war of 1812 it has not been invaded. It has not become accustomed to the concept. It has become - excuse my parlor - like a spoilt child brought up in the lap of luxury that is shocked when it meets an outside world that is so horrifying and terrifying. The child is shocked, its sensibilities are severely shaken and it reacts to things that everyone else is accustomed to with a relatively extreme posture. Such is the case of the United States.

It has never had to deal with terrorism. It hasn’t had its cities bombed as Europe and the Pacific Rim endured during the second world war. It hasn't had to deal with a lot of terrorism until now. It can't tolerate the notion of a non state actor acting against it. There lies the key. The very fact that a non state actor would have the gumption to even consider hostilities is very offensive to it. It can deal with another state actor harboring nefarious wishes against it. But, not a non state actor. Other nations would view both types of threats with sensible alertness but would accept that for both of them - such are the ways of the world.

The Russians, the British, the Chinese, the French and a whole host of other countries have had to deal with terrorism for hundreds of years. (The French even helped to create what we mean in modern times by what we call terrorism.) This is not to say that they have not taken the opportunity to crack down on internal dissent with the excuse of world terrorism. However they have been able to take it in their stride. No paradigm shift had occurred.

This explains how the US population went for war. It does not however explain what the administration was up to. The administration was planning for the invasion of Iraq from the time it took office.