As pointed out by Juan Cole, in his new book Bob Woodward apparently does not ask his interviewees, despite his extraordinary access, why the Administration took the actions it took. Before the President was tough; now he is stubborn, which is tough gone over the top. Before he was imposing his own reality; now he ignores reality, which just means his own reality wasn't completely imposed. All this personality sketching is the stuff of mainstream media. Always MoDo, Woodward, and the rest write about the smirk or the cocky grin or the piano playing instead of the motives of Bush, Rumsfeld and Rice. But the motives are what, in a wiser version of the world, we as voters and citizens might want to consider.
When I read the book, after I buy a used copy from Amazon, I vow to look for the why's and wherefore's but my suspicions are fairly fixed. This crew wanted war in the Middle East because they rightly considered it would win them several and perhaps many elections. Put it another way: if they had not thought that, they wouldn't have invaded. Perhaps politics alone was not enough but it was a sine qua non of invading. And second, they wanted an occupying army in the Middle East, on top of oil, probably until oil runs out somewhere around 2070. In their view that serves American interests. They didn't count on the occupation being so costly in lives or money but they still think it furthers American interests to be there, essentially for two or three generations, as with Germany or Japan.
If the hideous Foley cover-up does not cost them Congress next month, the Republicans may be right about the politics of war, and as to the second motive, I think it's highly unlikely that the United States will leave Iraq by the end of the current decade under any circumstances I can foresee. Actions by great powers have great consequences. Motives matter. Personalities matter much less, but of course it's no surprise that the MSM focusses on what doesn't matter.
