In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

tremendous influence over G. W. Bush’s early presidential agenda and his energy policy (Phillips, 2004). Of course, that was prior to the “Enron scandal ,” involving corporate corruption and accounting fraud perpetrated by Lay and his executive staff, which destroyed the company and resulted in the criminal convictions of Lay and others in federal court. As previously discussed, a relatively high level of public support for invading Iraq existed in the United States even before the attacks of 9/11. Consistent with the moral panic literature, the pre-9/11 public support for war was a social artifact of the Persian Gulf war, which did not remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. President George H. W. Bush’s decision to allow Saddam Hussein’s political regime to remain in power at the conclusion of the war in 1991 was unpopular in many circles. Many high-ranking military leaders, conservative politicians, members of the press, and segments of the general public were harshly critical of the senior Bush’s failure to remove Hussein. That social context established a final motivation for George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, involving his family legacy. It has been argued that George W. Bush was very critical of his own father for failing to “finish the job” in Iraq (R. Baker, 2004; Phillips, 2004). The son’s frustration with his father in that regard was dramatically portrayed by the actor Josh Brolin in Oliver Stone’s 2008 film W. In fact, eliminating Saddam Hussein became a priority for the younger Bush (Peterson, 2002). Two years before the 9/11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghostwriter, Mickey Herskowitz, who held many conversations with then-Texas governor G. W. Bush, in preparation for a planned autobiography (R. Baker, 2004). Herskowitz said that during their one-on-one meetings, G. W. Bush expressed frustration at being a lifelong underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. If elected president, the son saw the opportunity to emerge from that shadow by eliminating Saddam Hussein through military action and, thereby, complete his father’s unfinished business in Iraq (R. Baker, 2004). Clarke (2004) has stated that even before the attacks of 9/11, the G. W. Bush administration was distracted from efforts against Osama Bin Laden’s al Qaeda organization by a “preoccupation” with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was already targeted by G. W. Bush when he entered the White House in 2001, and the attacks of 9/11 created an opportunity for President Bush to eliminate Hussein by falsely linking the Iraqi leader to those catastrophic events (Clarke, 2004). Despite his claim that an invasion of Iraq was necessary due to its alleged ties to 9/11 and its alleged possession of WMD, Bush had personal motivations for war that were apparent. For example, during the buildup to the invasion, G. W. Bush personalized his argument for war, saying of the Iraqi leader, “He tried to kill my dad” (Peterson, 2002). What Are the Lessons of the Iraq War? 167 By removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, the younger Bush avenged his father and also accomplished what his father had failed to do more than a decade earlier. Significantly, G. W. Bush created his own identity and legacy in the process. The implications of that legacy are discussed at the end of this chapter. Finally, the personal satisfaction G. W. Bush derived from defeating Saddam Hussein was symbolized by a souvenir that he kept in a study adjoining the Oval Office—that is, the pistol Hussein was holding when he was captured by U.S. forces in Iraq (www.news.bbc.co.uk, 2004). Beyond the Bush family legacy, other motivations for the Iraq war were linked to the Bush administration’s goal of geopolitical domination, including the control of energy. Shortly after taking office in 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney declared that “Middle East oil producers will remain central to world oil security. . . . [Therefore, the] Persian Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy” (Muttitt, 2006, p. 8). Under the supervision of Cheney, an “oil security” strategy was implemented in 2001 that was designed to pursue the Bush administration’s energy goals through aggression (Phillips, 2004). To put the importance of the oil issue in perspective, the United States has only 5% of the world’s population but...

Share