(Iraq - still; 03-02; p.2)

Congress debates become more heated and in London about 150 000 protesters were counted on 28 September. Three permanent member states of the UN security council, China, Russia and France, oppose a war with the Arabian state.
Why is it, one may ask, that although facing such strong resistance the Bush administration so fervently insists on its demands?

 

Lines of argument

Currently, four lines of argument can be made out: one motivated by home affairs, one by economics, one by security and one by world order politics.

In regard to home affairs one finds that president Bush succeeded in pressing for a defence budget of an unprecedented size. Surely the 9/11 shock eased congressional approval; on the other hand - as known to the public - there were no victories yet to be claimed in the fight against major terrorists.
It might be that Bush and his supporters now feel they have to rectify policies and budget changes related to the September attacks. And it is also true that neutralising a "state of concern" may lead to a favourable climate for the mid-term elections.

Economically, the United States have a vital interest in the whole of the Gulf region: there are a lot of energy reserves which are considered unsubstitutable for the world's largest consumer. Besides, many members of the Bush administration formerly worked for companies in the energy sector, among them George W. "Harken" Bush and Condoleezza "Chevron" Rice.

Regarding security matters, it is not the USA alone that have an interest in non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems. Iraq showed on many occasions that she is interested in purchasing or producing such weapons. - Whether or not the Hussein regime has such military capabilities at its disposal remains unclear until inspectors found out. (read on here)