Iraq rationale: what's left?

The al-Qaeda link has been debunked. The WMD are confirmed to never have existed. Some Republicans are still maintaining a Cheney-esque state of denial, like that senator who went up against Dick Durbin in the Senate the other day, but most, I think, have to admit that the war rationale has been seriously undermined by the facts.

The central question, then, remains: Why did we invade Iraq? What changed to make it imperative that we topple Saddam and install a friendly government? Was the administration simply duped into thinking that Saddam was a bigger threat than he really was?

I don't think so. Over the past 2 years, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and even Powell have pushed these lines of reasoning unrelentingly despite their questionable foundations. The urgency with which they made their case was far greater than the facts and suppositions at their disposal justified.

There was a much bigger reason for going to war, something vital to our strategic interest but too sensitive to speak about. It was a shift in thinking brought about by 9/11, but it had nothing to do with terrorism on US soil and everything to do with oil.

What 9/11 showed the world, and our national security brains, was that Saudi Arabia was suddenly at far greater risk of an Iranian-style revolution than we realized. With Osama bin Laden aiming to overthrow the monarchy and legions of young, angry, Muslim men available and willing to die for the cause, it's only a matter of time before this revolution takes place. The CIA has probably even assigneed probabilities to various potential outcomes, and with a probability of X% that Saudi Arabia would fall to anti-US revolutionaries within, say, 10 years. Losing our Saudi friends, or more specifically their oil, could have catastrophic economic repercussions for us.

This is only a theory, but it's the only plausible rationale that I can think of for all the lying and cajoling that even respectable leaders like Powell stooped to to get us into war. By installing a friendly government in Baghdad, we ensure (or so it seemed at the time!) a safe flow of oil for the next two decades. And if a few of W's friends happen to get rich in the process, well that's just gravy. (After 20 years, his oil buddies will all be retired anyway.)

Don't forget, Bush's energy plan includes switching to hydrogen-based fuels, but not for at least 2 decades. Hence the need to have a long-term, oil-rich friend in the Middle East.