For those who lived through the attacks of 9/11/2001, for those who got the strong clear impression that the reason we were going to war in Iraq was because “the terrorists” destroyed our buildings, this video below was quite a shock. Former President George W Bush tells reporters that Iraq had nothing to do with ordering the attacks of 9/11.
It has been widely reported that former President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice made numerous statements that falsely implied or suggested a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. A comprehensive analysis by the Center for Public Integrity in 2008 found that these individuals made at least 935 false statements about the threat posed by Iraq in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion. {PubInteg} Among those were statements suggesting a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda, even though no credible evidence of such a relationship existed.
Why did the US go to war with Iraq after 9/11 if Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?
The Iraq War that began in 2003 was not a direct response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The official reason provided by the US government at the time was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a threat to the United States and its allies.
After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration adopted a broader doctrine known as the “War on Terror,” with the goal of preventing future attacks. The administration argued that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein’s regime, had violated United Nations Security Council resolutions related to WMD disarmament. They contended that Saddam Hussein could potentially provide WMDs to terrorist organizations or use them against the US.
However, the belief that Iraq possessed WMDs proved to be faulty. The subsequent invasion and occupation of Iraq became highly controversial domestically and internationally. Critics argued that the administration manipulated intelligence and used the post-9/11 climate of fear to gain support for the war. In 2005, a bipartisan commission concluded that there was no factual basis to claim that Iraq had substantive ties to Al-Qaeda or was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
What was the cost in lives and dollars of the Iraq war after 9/11?
The Iraq war, which started in 2003, was not directly related to the attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11). However, it was part of the broader War on Terror initiated by the United States after 9/11.
In terms of the cost in lives, estimates vary widely. According to Iraq Body Count, an organization that tracks civilian casualties in Iraq, they have recorded around 207,000 documented civilian deaths from 2003 to 2021 (though the actual number might be higher). The number of military deaths includes approximately 4,550 American service members and tens of thousands of Iraqi security forces and militia members. It is important to note that these numbers do not include non-Iraqi combatant deaths or deaths caused indirectly by the war, such as those resulting from infrastructure collapse, displacement, or disease.
In terms of financial costs, the U.S. government has spent trillions of dollars on the Iraq War. According to a study by the Watson Institute of International & Public Affairs at Brown University, the total cost of the Iraq War—including direct military expenses, long-term veteran care and benefits, interest on borrowed funds, and other associated costs—was estimated to be over $2 trillion as of 2013. However, some estimates suggest the total cost could be much higher.
It is important to note that these numbers are approximate and subject to debate, and the full impact of the war in terms of lives and dollars continues to be assessed.
Consequences for Misjudging the Situation, Reforms Resulting
None. Shut up.
Were we running out of oil then? Or not?
Before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush did acknowledge the issue of energy dependence and highlighted the need to reduce reliance on foreign oil. However, it is worth noting that the specific phrase “running out of oil” is not attributed to Bush himself.
In his 2001 State of the Union address, President Bush stated, “This is our urgent challenge: we have the worst energy problem since the oil embargoes of the 1970s… We will increase our energy independence when we increase the number of different sources of energy we use. The way to do it is through technology.” This speech reflected his concerns about energy security and the need to diversify the country’s energy sources.
While President Bush recognized the importance of addressing energy dependence, it is essential (says state-sponsored AI) to separate his statements from any premonition about the 9/11 attacks, as there is no direct connection between his comments on energy and the subsequent terrorist events.
Still Wondering
Twenty-two years later, I’m still wondering what was true among all of the things said. Did the Iraq war buy the USA 20 years of more affordable oil and now we are going to be in trouble again soon? I do not know. Someone nearer to the top clearly would, but after going through something like the rhetoric and fear of 9/11, you aren’t terribly inclined to trust what leaders say. The 9/11 generation has had PTSD from that, and recently the added PTSD of COVID-19 to live with, but hey, at least no World War like previous generations. Knock on wood.
It seems like every generation gets some big traumatic event. If that is true and the spread is about 20 years, then our next big trauma will be coming up around the year 2040. I can not, however, guarantee that it will not be sooner. Live well and love life.
2 comments