Padfoot714's Iraq Conspiracy Theory

[Padfoot]

Here's my conspiracy theory on Iraq and the war on terror.  I have been very suspicious of two phrases that the Bush administration has used since the beginning of the war on terror.  The first one usually goes along the lines of, "We need to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here."  The second on is that, "Iraq is the central front of the war on terror."  It makes me think that the real reason we invaded Iraq was to create a lightning rod that would attract terrorists groups all into one conflict in which we could defeat them.  Our initial attack on Afghanistan went too quickly and there wasn't any real outpouring of rage from the broader Middle East because everyone knew we had a just cause to invade and no one dared oppose us.  However, Bush wanted to ensure that we wiped out all the terrorists in the Middle East, he didn't want any more groups to just bide their time like Al-Qaeda did.  So, he and Emperor Palpa- I mean Dick Cheney concocted a plan to invade another Middle Eastern country on shakier arguments so that there would be more anger directed at the US.  First, they pick a country we've had a problem with before and that we know is easy to defeat.  Then they "recreate" our former problem with them as justification for invasion knowing that there would be objections from the broader Middle East.  The plan would be to invade and occupy quickly and then wait for the terrorists to come to us there.  Then we could easily defeat them from our newly established stronghold.  The ultimate logic being that the terrorists would opt to attack the closer target of the US military rather than trying to sneak into the US and attempt another elaborate 9/11 style attack, thus diverting their resources and efforts from hatching more terrorist plots within the US.

This plan may have worked brilliantly if not for some very major oversights and miscalculations.  The first problems arose when not only the Middle East, but large numbers of our Western allies didn't buy into the WMD argument.  The plan was to arouse anti-US sentiment in the Middle East but it soon spread to Europe as well.  This eventually helped along the anti-war movement back home as well when we finally caught up to Europe and realized the WMDs were a false pretense.  The second miscalculation involved the actual people of Iraq.  The Bush admin. underestimated the affects of upsetting the balance of power between ethnic groups and overestimated the ability of Kurdish and Shiite Iraqis to "forgive and forget" the atrocities of Saddam's Sunni government.  Because of this misjudgment, not enough troops were sent to maintain stability after Saddam's fall.  With Iraqi citizens beginning to turn on each other, the US was unable to establish the stronghold Bush sought to create and the small number of troops were unable to stop the influx of terrorists due to the civil war erupting all around them.

And now here we are.  Unable to fight the actual terrorists due to the instability of Iraq's citizens, the US is stuck policing a civil war instead of fighting Islamic radicalism like Bush wanted.  Instead he has created a new wave of anti-Western sentiment that cannot be checked since we are stuck trying to keep Iraqis from killing each other.

OK, now before you make comments please keep in mind that I myself am not completely convinced of my own theory.  Its just sort of an eerie feeling that I have gotten based on the soundbites the administration has been using to describe the war in Iraq.  I'd also be just as willing to accept that Bush could have been set up by someone else.  The whole matter of the bad intelligence we had on the WMDs is what really raises my suspicions.  I'm just not sure who fabricated/tweaked/manipulated it enough so that the President felt comfortable taking that argument to the world as justification for the invasion.

One last note, even if you vote for the Bigfoot option please don't get nasty.  Its a conspiracy theory people, all of them sound crazy.  The really crazy part is if you find out 75 years later that they are actually true.  Once everyone involved has been dead for a bit and the records start getting declassified , then our grandkids will perhaps know what the real story was.  And they'll be bored to death by it after reading about it in a high school history book.

[Bacon King]

They'll be too busy in Iraq so they won't attack elsewhere? Tell that to the victims of the Madrid train bombings, or those who died in the July 7 London bombings.

Not to mention the terrorists' attempt at blowing up all those planes over the Atlantic.

If anything, the US being in Iraq has made us less safe against potential acts of terrorism- our actions most likely help Al-Queda and other similar groups increase their membership, and give them an additional reason to desire to harm us. If they want to harm us, they will attack wherever it hurts the most- not whatever target is closest geographically.

The logic of 'they'll attack us over there so they won't attack us here' is heavily flawed, and I don't think even Bush believes it.

[CultureKing]

personally I think you are making Bush seem too smart with this idea (though it still wouldnt make sense this point of view could be seen before being shred to tatters)

But interesting idea none the less, I have always liked conspiracy theories, so keep them coming!

[Padfoot]

They'll be too busy in Iraq so they won't attack elsewhere? Tell that to the victims of the Madrid train bombings, or those who died in the July 7 London bombings.

Not to mention the terrorists' attempt at blowing up all those planes over the Atlantic.

If anything, the US being in Iraq has made us less safe against potential acts of terrorism- our actions most likely help Al-Queda and other similar groups increase their membership, and give them an additional reason to desire to harm us. If they want to harm us, they will attack wherever it hurts the most- not whatever target is closest geographically.

The logic of 'they'll attack us over there so they won't attack us here' is heavily flawed, and I don't think even Bush believes it.

Of course it is flawed.  That's part of the reason why the conspiracy failed.

[??????????]

A more accurate theory would be that of attacking Iraq in order to provide a two front battle against Iran. We pretty much now have Iran completely surrounded on all sides. IF that was the case then I still strongly support that action.

[John Dibble]

Highly unlikely. If indeed this was the plan we would have been better prepared for the results - enough generals and high ranking officers would have been notified of the plan or at least the likelihood of the occurance of terrorist infiltration of the country and the occupation strategy would have been better tailored to such an operation. Compound this with the fact that there are a multitude of other motivations Bush might have had for invading Iraq and it just doesn't seem all that likely.