What Caused the Iraq War?

            In the articles presented by Debs and Monteiro and Lake, they have a little back and forth over the causes of the Iraq invasion. Debs and Monteiro argue on the basis of rationalism, in which they say that some of the main causes of the war were Iraq’s suspected nuclearization, 9/11, and the US’s lack of information about Iraq’s WMD program. Lake seemed to believe that the causes consisted more of Saddam addressing multiple audiences (Iran, Shite rebels), the Bush administrations “belief” that Iraq was developing WMD’s regardless of the information, and the Bush administrations miscalculation of the cost of war. Based on these arguments, I would choose to side with Debs and Monteiro and their rationalist ideas.

            Although in Lake’s response model he states that he agrees with much of what Debs and Monteiro are discussing, his main ideas vary from the rationalist train of thought. I agree with Lake’s assessment that the Bush administration did miscalculate what the costs of war would be in Iraq; however, because of 9/11, I think that the invasion would have happened regardless. This is where I think Debs and Monteiro are more correct by placing the importance of the 9/11 attacks above other potential factors. For example, even if Saddam was addressing multiple audiences to try and perhaps scare them off or intimidate them, this would not effect the US’s decision to go to war because they were not, as Debs and Monteiro put it, “necessary for the war”. Regardless of Saddam trying to intimidate other groups, we still would have invaded because of the other reasons addressed by Debs and Monteiro.

            In terms of the Bush administrations “belief” that Iraq had WMDs, Debs and Monteiro explain it so that it wasn’t the blind belief of the misinformation that led to the invasion, but the inconclusive evidence about Iraq’s program. Lake says, “What mattered in the final decision was not the facts but the belief that Iraq was engaged in weapons development”.  In the US’s heightened state of paranoia post-9/11, not being able to prove that Iraq was not producing WMDs was reason enough to invade, whereas in the pre-9/11 area that may not have been cause for an invasion. Continuing this idea, Debs and Monteiro bring up the “one-percent Doctrine”, which is likely responsible for the invasion based on the possibility of Iraqi nuclearization. I think this coincides with the reasoning that the 9/11 attacks caused the war because 9/11 was directly responsible for the creation of the one-percent Doctrine. Because of the surprise and unexpectedness of 9/11, the US was forced to take other maybe not as likely threats more seriously.

            Even though I agree with some of Lake’s arguments, I believe that Debs and Monteiro more accurately describe the actual causes for the War in Iraq, and separating them from things that, had they not happened, the war would have still occurred. The most important reasoning behind my siding with Debs and Monteiro is the influence that they place in the 9/11 attacks on the decision to invade Iraq. I fully believe that 9/11 was one of the, if not the most important factor leading up to the invasion. Therefore, I agree with Debs and Monteiro’s interpretation over Lake’s.