[Sethomas]

The point of the Iraq war was to set an example and a standard in the Middle East, a sort of referendum that all Arab nations assume more Westernized governments and, subsequently, cultures. This will allow them to open up their markets more liberally to the West while posing less of a volatile threat.

As it was explained to me by two different conservatives, Iraq was chosen more or less at random. It simply made for the most convenient target in that the United States was already polarized strongly against Saddam Hussein, much more so than against any other Middle Eastern despot.

The strategy was intended to be psychological largely; brutalize a few countries at first with great pomp and circumstance ("Shock and Awe", remember that?, the staged set-ups like the toppling of the statue, the Hollywood styling of the Hussein trial) as an imperative for other countries to throw themselves into autonomous transitions toward the administration's goals. When the Cedar Revolution seemed to show the dominoes falling exactly as described, it was publicized much more than it would have been had there not been a war in Iraq.

It never clicked in before, but I once shared a hospital room with a man who had several degrees in Middle Eastern studies with special interests in Persian culture. He just said out of the blue that "...but NOW I don't think Bush is going to invade Iran anytime soon." That was a few days after the assassination of Rafik Hariri. I guess that makes more sense to me now.

So, when the Secretary of Chicago Republicans explained the whole thing to me back in 2004 (in direct contradiction of his explanations of February 2003) he basically threw out the hyperbole of wanting a Middle East full of McDonalds, Wal-Marts, and Coca-Cola. That really underscores the whole naiveté of the Neocon idealism that thinks that this all is really possible.