2. BACKGROUNDS & CAUSES: Neoconservatism, 9/11 and the War on Terror

Key Question that will guide this inquiry:

What motivated the United States to invade Iraq in 2003, and was it in their national interest?

RECOMMENDED READING: B. Hoepper 2009 'Global Voices 2'. Jacaranda pp.286-288: CLICK HERE

As you travel through this inquiry you will be presented with FOUR POSSIBLE CAUSES of the Iraq War:

• Neo-conservatism; 
• 9/11 (and the War on Terror); 
• Weapons of Mass Destruction; and 
• US oil interests. 

- Link for collaborative class notes where teacher instructs: SHAMBLESPAD NOTES

- Backchannel on TodaysMeet: CLICK HERE

LEARNING INTENTION FOR THIS PAGE: By the end of this section, 

• UNDERSTAND the political theory 'neo-conservatism'; 
• IDENTIFY neo-conservative perspectives within historical source evidence and distinguish it from other political perspectives (liberalism and realism)
• EVALUATE whether this theory influenced the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

---------------------------------------------------------------

SUB-QUESTION 1: To what extent did 'neo-conservatism' and the events of 9/11 influence the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq?

NEO-CONSERVATISM as an idea

Many academics and commentators on the Iraq War of 2003 argue that a neo-conservative clique in Washington took advantage of the environment of heightened fear after 9/11 and influenced the Bush administration to adopt a right-wing, neo-conservative foreign policy.  It us argued that the neo-conservatives (NeoCons) justified war in Iraq with a threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to the US and other liberal-democracies, and publicized a link between Saddam Hussein, WMD, 9/11 and Al Qaeda in order to push for a US led invasion of Iraq and bring democracy to the Middle East.

Add the following definition to your table from the earlier class in the same fashion: 

• NEO-CONSERVATISM: An American political theory that the US should pursue a tough foreign policy on behalf of morality. According to Yuen Foong Khong (Professor of International Relations at Oxford University), neo-conservative foreign policy thought emphasizes 1. the moral necessity of distinguishing between the forces  of good and evil in the international arena; 2. the importance of maintaining military predominance; 3. a greater willingness to use force; and 4. a deep mistrust of international law and institutions such as the United Nations or the World Trade Organisation (Neoconservatism and the Sources of American Foreign Policy, in Smith, S. et al. 2012:309-10).

Many commentators and academics of world politics and international relations argue that Neoconservative US foreign policy was a major cause for the Iraq War in 2003. But, what do you think? Let's interrogate some of the primary and secondary evidence associated with the lead up to the Iraq War in light of a neoconservative foreign policy framework.


ACTIVITY 1: Background to Neo-Conservatisve thought - the narrative

Paraphrase the following narrative information in the form of a timeline on Neo-Conservative thought as a causal factor for the Iraq War:

The Cold War era was for the most part informed by realist balance of power foreign policy in a bipolar international system. This was at least until the later stages under the Reagan administration of the 1980s where neoconservative influences began to creep into US foreign policy; for example, democratisation through the support of anti-communist contras in Latin America. However, according to Irving Kristol, American columnist, journalist and writer, said to be the "godfather of neo-conservatism", ‘the origin of NC can be found among the disillusioned liberal intellectuals of the 1970s; disillusionment associated with domestic turmoil – the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War’ (Cited in Smith et al. 2012).

On foreign policy, neoconservatives were fervent anti-communists, emphasising the ideological and moral superiority of democracy, while advocating the maintenance of a strong military. The NC standpoint was that the Vietnam War was a ‘noble war’, which could have been won had the American public and media been less fickle. Neoconservatives, along with other political conservatives, or hawks, argued for stronger military budgets, even in times of economic strain, in the name of restoring the prestige and power of the US military. They had the view that US military power needed to be shored up in the later stages of the Cold War. Neoconservatives such as 1976 CIA Director George H.W. Bush, member of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Paul Wolfowitz, and Harvard historian Richard Pipes among others, were of the view in the 1970s that the Soviet Union was catching up and would surpass the military power of the USA. Neoconservatives assessed the Soviet Union as bent on both military superiority and global Soviet hegemony, an assessment given further credence by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

At the end of the Cold War, NeoCons were on the political margins. They focussed on and worried about the failure of Bush Sr administration (didn't get rid of Saddam Hussein in 1991 when he had the chance) and the Clinton administration (they wanted greater military involvement in the Balkans), they agitated for the use of force against the Serbs in Bosnia and pushed to maintain US military strength and moral purpose throughout the world. 

Critics of neo-conservatism would argue that this was a knee-jerk reaction on the part of the NeoCons to the fear of their irrelevance in a more stable international security environment, that which Francis Fukiyama (1989) argued was the ‘End of History’, or the unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism, ‘the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.’

William Kristol, the son of the ‘godfather of Neo-conservatism’, Irving Kristol, a Professor of Government at Harvard University and a later Senior Foreign Policy Adviser under both Bush administrations, together with Professor of History and Republican Senior Foreign Policy Adviser from the 1980s through to 2008 Robert Kagan, penned in the 1990s a series of neoconservative foreign policy tracts that would later influence the Bush administration; It was the foundation of the Bush Doctrine in the early 2000s. Their 1996 Foreign Affairs article, ‘Towards a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy’ is widely regarded as the seminal foreign policy statement of contemporary neoconservative thought (Smith et al. 2012). They argued that the international role of the USA is to exercise ‘benevolent global hegemony’, that is ‘a leader with preponderant influence and authority over all others’. Such a policy would involve the following:

•A consistently strong defence budget that reinforces the power disparity between the US and would-be challengers;

•Educating the American public of the importance of supporting the US armed forces as they carry out the ‘responsibilities of global hegemony’;

•Clear moral purpose to promote democracy, free markets, and individual liberty abroad.

Kristol & Kagan sent a letter to President Bill Clinton two years later in January 1998 lobbying for regime change in Iraq under the auspices of the PROJECT ON THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY (PNAC). The letter was co-signed by 16 others associated with Republican administrations – 8 of whom would hold policy positions in the Bush administration three years later. The letter argued that existing policy of containing Iraq was not working and that, ‘the only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use WMD’ (Kristol & Kagan 1998). The case for a preventative war against Iraq was laid out. Clinton neglected it, but Bush appointed 8 of the signatories such as Wolfowitz, Bolton, and Rumsfeld to important positions in his administration (Hubris documentary, ‘Selling the Iraq War’, 2013).

ACTIVITY 2: Neo-conservatism - from idea to action

Writing for the Republican ‘think tank’ on the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in 1998, Kristol and Kagan emphasised 4 core NC tenets as fundamental for “promoting American global leadership” - noted in the left column of the table below. 

1. Copy the table above into your notes;
2. Then, draw a line/arrow between the two columns joining the neo-conservative tenet to the application (sentiment of the Bush administration) that best characterises the tenet.

ACTIVITY 3: Analysing the US National Interest
Copy and paste the source below into your notes. Then, IDENTIFY whether any of the 5 points within Condoleeza Rice’s definition of the national interest correspond with the tenets of neo-conservatism discussed earlier in Activity 2? Lastly, ANNOTATE your notes to demonstrate where you believe they exist - ready to share in a small group discussion.

In 2000, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defined the US national interest in the post-Cold War era as five-fold,

'(1) to ensure that America’s military can deter war, project power, and fight in defense of its interests if deterrence fails; (2) to promote economic growth and political openness by extending free trade and a stable international monetary system to all committed to these principles, including in the western hemisphere, which has too often been neglected as a vital area of U.S. national interest; (3) to renew strong and intimate relationships with allies who share American values and can thus share the burden of promoting peace, prosperity, and freedom; (4) to focus U.S. energies on comprehensive relationships with the big powers, particularly Russia and China, that can and will mold the character of the international political system; (5) and to deal decisively with the threat of rogue regimes and hostile powers, which is increasingly taking the forms of the potential for terrorism and the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).'Rice, Condoleezza. 2000. “Promoting the national interest.” Foreign Affairs. 79(Jan./Feb): 45-62.

Check your answers to ACTIVITY 3: CLICK HERE

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEO-CONSERVATISM in action, 9/11 and the War on Terror

September 11, 2001. Most people call it 9/11. It could remain the most well known date of the 21st century. Some say that it is a day that changed the world. others are less certain.

" It caused a sharp swerve in our history that took us down a road we did not anticipate or welcome. In the heady days of the 1990s,  peace and prosperity seemed almost permanent. After the attack, that illusion disintegrated." (Cartoonist David Horsey)

by US Cartoonist David Horsey shortly after 9/11

The Prize-winning US cartoonist David Horsey certainly thought 9/11 made a difference. In this cartoon Uncle Sam leads optimistic and affluent US citizens from the celebratory sunshine of the immediate post-Cold War era into a dark and foreboding post-9/11 world. "What made the difference is clear - the smouldering Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, paralysed and finally felled by a startling act of terrorism" (Brian Hoepper et al 2009).

On 11 September 2001, terrorists hijacked four airliners. They crashed two into the Twin Towers of New York's World Trade Center. Another they crashed into the Pentagon - US military headquarters in Washington, DC. The fourth, probably headed for the White House or the US Capitol building in Washington (core symbols of US capitalism), crashed in a field after passengers fought back against the hijackers, prematurely crashing the plane short of its target. 'About 3000 people of many nationalities, but mainly US citizens, died in the attacks' (Hoepper et al 2009:262).

Find a SHORT clip of the event on Youtube - preferably a home video - and note one point of significance (an interesting thing that shows why this is such an important historical event in world history) ready for discussion afterwards.

By the end of the day on September 11, 2001 President George Bush (Republican president of the US from 2001-2009) had addressed the nation on a televised broadcast.


ACTIVITY 4: analysis of primary evidence - US perspective
President George W. Bush's address to the nation following the attacks of 11 September 2001 (extracts)

Good evening. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts ...The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures collapsing, have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger. These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten out nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed; our country is strong ...These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.America was targeted for attack because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. and no one will keep that light from shining. Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature. And we responded with the very best of America - with the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring for strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they could ...I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism ...None of us will ever forget this day. Yet, we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world ... (www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001)

1. What emotions does Bush say he felt?
2. Why does Bush think the terrorists targeted the United States?
3. Bush mentions 'the best of America'. What might he mean by that?
4. What immediate steps does Bush promise in response to the attacks?
5. According to Bush, what values does the United States stand for?
6. Bush said, 'We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them'. Why might he have made that threat? Think about what that threat means; could it have unfair consequences?
7. Bush said there would be a 'war against terrorism'. How would that be different from conventional wars (the wars that are usually fought). Why might it be difficult to conduct a 'war against terrorism'? 
8. In his speech, Bush highlights the differences between the terrorists and the 'Americans'. Complete a linguistic analysis of the speech listing words under the following two categories:

• |Words used to describe the terrorists and their actions  
• |Words used to describe the USA, its people, their beliefs and actions.

9. Has President Bush made an explicit link to Iraq here?
10. Compare this source with the definition of the US national interest by Condaleeza Rice in 2000. Can you find a continuity of Neo-Conservativism?

Check your answer to ACTIVITY 4 - Question 10: CLICK HERE

ACTIVITY 5: Empathy
The images you see of the aftermath of the attack on the Twin Towers of the New York World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.

1. How do you think New Yorkers would have felt on first seeing these images of their changed cityscape?
2. Compare the words you have chosen above with those used by President Bush to describe the emotional effects of the attack.
3. Do you think this would have influenced people to support a military response to the event? Explain and share on the Forum at the bottom of the page.

9/11 in 2001 provided the opportunity which tipped the balance in favour on neo-conservative doctrine. The subsequent military action in Afghanistan was a case of taking care of things too late - after one had been attacked. National security adviser Condoleeza Rice in October 2002 had this to say,

“The lesson of September 11: take care of threats early”

And political cartoons such as Bill Day's (12 Sept. 2001, in the Cagle Post) below were published immediately after 9/11, which neo-conservatives used in a 'told you so' mentality:

In two National Security Council meetings in the days after 9/11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s position was to ask: 

“Do we focus on Bin Laden and al Qaeda, or terrorism more broadly?” (cited in Smith et al. 2012). 

According to Professor of International Relations and Foreign Policy Yuen Foong Khong (2012) and investigative journalist Bob Woodford (2002), ‘More broadly’ was code for Iraq. And in the 15 September meeting held at Camp David, Rumsfeld was more explicit in stating: 

“Is this the time to attack Iraq?” (ibid). 

The answer was not yet for President Bush… not until the link between Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda and WMD had been established ‘definitively’ and sold to the US public.

ACTIVITY 6: Evaluating secondary evidence - consulting the academics 

Read the following source by Professors Brian Schmidt and Michael Williams. The source appeared in a 2008 publication of the journal ‘Security Studies’ titled ‘The Bush Doctrine: Neoconservatives Versus Realists’ (p.197). Then, copy the source and EXPLAIN in your notes how this source might corroborate the sentiment publicised by Condoleeza Rice in her definition of the US national interest in 2000. 

“In light of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Bush administration depicted a threat environment radically different from that which existed during the Cold War. The most worrisome threats were deemed to be rogue states and terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). 9/11 had dramatically shown the willingness of terrorists to inflict large-scale destruction and death on American soil. In the climate of fear that existed after 9/11, and intentionally inflamed by neoconservative pundits appearing on MSNBC and Fox News, scenarios of rogue states or terrorists armed with WMD were deemed unacceptable by Bush administration officials.”

-------------------------------------------------------------

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

As former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice noted in 2000 in her article 'Promoting the National Interest', US neo-conservatives were preparing 'to deal decisively with the threat of rogue regimes and hostile powers', which in the neo-conservatives opinion was 'increasingly taking the forms of the potential for terrorism and the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)'. Therefore, after 9/11 the Bush administration looked towards Iraq as one of the key members of what he termed 'the axis of evil' and portrayed Saddam Hussein as a threat to US national security due to apparent evidence that he possessed WMD. Lets interrogate further evidence to decide whether these threats were conclusive and the US justified in their actions!

ACTIVITY 7: Neo-conservative 1% Doctrine

Bush’s foreign policy after 9/11 included the very neoconservative ‘1% Doctrine’, a doctrine that argued that even ‘with a one percent chance of a grave threat materialising, the USA should treat that threat as a certainty and act to eliminate it - wage a preventative war.’ The doctrine provided an ‘operational answer to a key element of the Bush Doctrine of preventative war’ (Khong 2012:318). 

Author Ron Suskind discusses his research and subsequent book 'the One Percent Doctrine': 

5i. As you watch this, consider the larger debate raised here, whether it is justifiable to sacrifice the liberties of many to guarantee the security of all. What do you think? This is pivotal to the libertarian argument over domestic security policy after 9/11 for the War on Terror, and now as the current Abbott Government looks to revise Australia’s anti-terror. Share your ideas on the Comment Forum at the bottom of the page:

5ii. Now, copy the source below to your notes and circle the section that best reflects author Ron Suskind's argument about the 1% Doctrine

U.S. National Security Strategy: Prevent Our Enemies From Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction , 2002

“We [the United States] must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge … Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States. We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. . . .We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed”. 

ACTIVITY 8: Analysing evidence with a range of differing standpoints/perspectives 
Questions over the threat to US national security posed by Saddam and WMD

SOURCE 8i. In these sections of the documentary Hubris: Selling the Iraq War, you will see evidence presented in opposition to Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11 and possessed WMD. As you view these parts of the documentary (feel free to view the remaining sections of the documentary later) below:

i. see if you can you find FIVE Primary, verifiable, credible and authoritative pieces of historical evidence that DISCOUNT any link between Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, 9/11, or WMD. Note them in a table in your notes and explain how they discount the link.
ii. As a class discuss and decide on 2-3 pieces of evidence collectively found that you would like to include in the upcoming Category 1 Exam Source Sheet and post them to the forum below (be sure to include WHAT IT IS - and quote if necessary; WHERE IT IS in the video - time; and WHY IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED - an annotation about its relevance, reliability and representativeness, or gaps/silences).
iii. Conduct some independent research in order to find a source that opposes the perspectives found in the video clips - i.e. that supports a link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11 and WMD >>> add it to the forum at the bottom of the page for possible inclusion in the Exam Source Sheet with the same conditions as the sources offered in no.ii. above.

2013 Documentary 'Hubris: Selling the Iraq War' (Parts 2, 3 & 4)

SOURCES 8ii., 8iii, 8iv
Consulting three academics and authors on the subject
Now, see if you can find any connections to that which these academics and authors (secondary evidence) state below, and add it to your table in another column titled 'SECONDARY CORROBORATION'

‘the link was manufactured through unfounded claims of weapons of mass destruction, to suit neo-conservative political ends by stating that the Bush administration used a a classic modern strategy of endangered right wing oligarchy which is to divert mass [domestic] discontent to nationalism inspired by fear of enemies that are about to destroy us.’ (Professor Noam Chomsky, 2002)

‘The war was clearly a project of a small clique and had to be strenuously propagated with ‘weapons of mass deception’, by exploiting the ‘politics of fear’.  (Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber in their book Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq)

“U.S. economic dominance is surpassed only by its own position immediately following World War II. U.S. military dominance is even more asymmetrical: U.S. defense spending in 2003 was more than the combined defense spending of the next twenty-five military powers, many of which are U.S. allies, and it conducts approximately 80 percent of the world’s military research and development. The United States dominates across most of the quantitative dimensions of power traditionally used by political scientists to measure polarity, as well as in many qualitative, information-age measures. The extent of current U.S. preponderance is difficult to overstate: it is the only state with global power projection capabilities.” (Monten, J. 2005, “The Roots of the Bush Doctrine”, in International Security, Vol. 29, No. 4. 112-156.)

SOURCE 8v.
Osama bin Laden sends a message to the USA, 7 September 2007

"People of America: ... I begin by discussing the war which is between us ...America statistics speak of the killing of more than 650 000 of the people Iraq as a result of the war ...The entire world came out in unprecedented demonstrations to warn against waging the war and describe its true nature in eloquent terms like 'no to spilling red blood for black oil', yet he [President Bush] paid them no heed ...However, there are two solutions for stopping it. The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you ... And the second solution is from your side. It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations.... it has become clear to all that they are the real tyrannical terrorists. In fact, the life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations ... The capitalist system seeks to turn the entire world into a fiefdom of the major corporations under the label of 'globalization' in order to protect democracy.And Iraq and Afghanistan and their tragedies; and the reeling of many of you under the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgages; global warming and its woes; and the abject poverty and tragic hunger in Africa: all of this is but one side of the grim face of this global system.To conclude, I invite you to embrace Islam, for the greatest mistake one can make in this world and one which is uncorrectable is to die while surrendering to Allah, the Most High, in all aspects of one's life ..."(http://counterterrorismblog.org)

1. What does bin Laden say is the real reason that the United States attacked Iraq?
2. According to bin Laden, who are the 'real terrorists', and how have they damaged the world?
3. Bin Laden offers two solutions to end the fighting. What are they?
4. Bin Laden refers to the US government, US corporations, the US military, the US civilian population, Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa and the global environment. He claims they are all linked. Draw a diagram that names each of the above, and that uses arrows and words to describe the links that bin Laden seems to be suggesting. 
5. Compare the words of Bush (2001 address to the nation after 9/11 extracts above ) and bin Laden. To what extent does each use emotive language to heighten the impact of his speech?

SOURCE 8vi.

“War with Iraq is Not in America’s National Interest,” New York Times, paid advertisement, 26 September 2002.

Scholars of international security affairs in a paid advertisement in the New York Times in September 2002 were among some of the most vocal critics of the Bush administration’s move towards war in Iraq. 

1. What are the key arguments put forward in this source.
2. Is this source primary or secondary by nature?
3. Why might the above source be useful, relevant and reliable for investigating this focus question?



SOURCE 8vii.

‘Unnecessary War’, in ‘Foreign Policy’, January 1, 2003,
Harvard University Professor of International Relations Stephen Walt together with Professor of Political Science at University of Chicago John Miersheimer went on to argue in their article ‘Unnecessary War’, in ‘Foreign Policy’, January 1, 2003,

“Both logic and historical evidence suggest a policy of vigilant containment would work, both now and in the event Iraq acquires a nuclear arsenal. Why? Because the United States and its regional allies are far stronger than Iraq. And because it does not take a genius to figure out what would happen if Iraq tried to use WMD to blackmail its neighbors, expand its territory, or attack another state directly. It only takes a leader who wants to stay alive and who wants to remain in power. Throughout his lengthy and brutal career, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly shown that these two goals are absolutely paramount. That is why deterrence and containment would work.”

1. Is the perspective of the authors here in support or against the Bush administration's neo-conservative foreign policy and actions of invasion in Iraq? Explain.
2. Can you identify information in the source above that shows whether the academics support a liberalist, realist or neo-conservative perspective on foreign policy?


EXTENSION SOURCE 8viii. - THE CONSPIRACY THEORY PERSPECTIVE: 9/11 documentary 'Loose Change'
As historians we should always look to consult as many perspectives on any event from the past in order to get a better understanding on what actually happened. Here is an alternative view about 9/11, this perspective presents a theory of political conspiracy placing the US government at the centre. But remember, as historians we also base our judgement on conclusive evidence!  CLICK HERE

-------------------------------------------------------------------

These various voices above provide clues about world events leading up to and since 9/11. Soon after the Twin Towers collapsed, President Bush declared a 'War on Terrorism'. He promised to bring to justice the terrorists and those that harboured them. The United States was a 'beacon of freedom and justice', according to President Bush, and the war on terrorism, he promised, would bring peace and security and ensure stability in the international system once more. The first step in this 'War on Terror' was to invade Afghanistan in 2001 to destroy al Qaeda and bring Osama bin Laden to justice for 9/11, and replace the highly oppressive fundamental Islamic government the Taliban with a more democratic government. Then, in 2003 the Bush administration turned to Iraq as part of the 'War on Terror'. By the time the last US soldiers left Iraq soil in 2011 under the Obama administration, the initial idea in 2003 of a quick campaign in Iraq to bring democracy and rid the Middle East of a potential 'evil' threat was a distant memory. $800 billion later (Belasco 2011) and 4450 American lives, with 32,000 wounded, and 10,000 Iraqi military-security and 100,000 civilian fatalities (Brookings Institution 2011), perhaps these neoconservative hopes reveal a blind spot when we look at the state of Iraq in 2014.

RECOMMENDED READING: B. Hoepper 2009 'Global Voices 2'. Jacaranda pp.286-288: CLICK HERE