I admire Dan K.'s analysis.  It makes sense and is consistent with my memory of how things looked then.

However, I have found that no explanation I have ever read or heard for the invasion of Iraq completely convinced me.  I have read so many well-written explanations, the fact that I am not fully satisfied with any of them intrigues me.

The invasion was not only stupid (from the standpoint of those executing it) but bizarrely stupid.  One reason none of the explanations I have heard fully convince me is because at some point or another, they assume rationality - either political or psychodynamic - without being able to proove it.

I suspect that the reasons for the invasion of Iraq will mystify and intrigue historians for a long while, particularly if it winds up becoming a turning point in history.  

I have assumed that there must be some complex mix of imperalist rationality (domination over the oil-rich Middle East) and ideological dynamics (neo-Cons making their mark on the world) and personal dynamics (Bush heard God tell him to do it or some Oedipal complex drove him to finish off what his father left undone).

Another possibility is that a full explanation of why the invasion occurred is not visible now because some aspect of the motivation is so widespread throughout American culture, even among opponents of the invasion, that we just can not see it.

Posted at October 10, 2005 2:18 AM in response to An Epitaph for an Administration

Could much about the trajectory of Russia be explained by the fact that it is a petro-state?

Looking at, for example Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Indonesia, as examples, petroleum revenues seem to generate massive corruption and turn out to be socially quite harmful. 

It is like being a child actor:  you have money but never mature properly. 

(Nations that are already industrialized, socially modernized, and democratic, such as the UK and Norway can take in petro-revenues constructively.) 

Posted at September 27, 2005 1:37 PM in response to Russia Adrift