Why the U.S. Invaded Iraq: Oil, Hegemony, and Realism

Introduction: Two Competing Explanations

There are two broad explanations for the American invasion of Iraq: the official position put forward by the Bush administration on the one hand, and the position most scholars and foreign policy analysts support on the other. The latter holds that invading Iraq served distinct foreign policy goals that were not being honestly articulated but which nevertheless underwrote official decisions. Within these two broad camps are a number of more specific explanations as to why the United States invaded Iraq, the most salient of which was the need to maintain American political and fiscal hegemony.

Official Justifications and Their Collapse

At the time of the public announcement to invade Iraq in March of 2003, President Bush offered three reasons: "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam's support of terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people" (cited by Kramer and Thrall 1). All three of these reasons sounded persuasive on paper and helped rally some initial popular and Congressional support. Indeed, Hussein "had continued to sponsor terrorism, had over the years invaded or attacked four of his neighbors, and had killed tens of thousands of his own people" (Hanson).

However, less than a year after Bush made his public assertion — coupled with his "axis of evil" rhetoric — evidence emerged to show that none of these three reasons could have been the real purpose for invading Iraq. No connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda could be found, no WMDs were discovered, and the United States did not appear nearly as altruistic toward the Iraqi people as Bush had claimed. Certainly there was no substantiated connection between the events of September 11 and Iraq.

September 11 did, however, present a justification for invading Iraq on a silver platter. The terrorist attacks offered a "window of opportunity" for aggression "without public censure" — a reason to invade, even if a spurious one (Kramer and Thrall 6). The invasion of Iraq might have occurred even without September 11, but it would likely have been harder to garner support for a second Gulf War had fear of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction not been at peak levels in the aftermath of those attacks.

The Downing Street Memo and Hidden Interests

If none of the official reasons for invading Iraq were true, then the deeper reasons were ostensibly illegitimate, if not wholly sinister. A leaked secret memorandum known as the Downing Street Memo, written to senior British intelligence and military officials including the Defense Secretary, indicated that Washington had for some time viewed a war in Iraq as "inevitable," and that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the" bellicose policy (Rycroft). If that was the case, then the deeper reasons for invading Iraq had to do with preserving American interests not only in the Middle East but globally.

The false pretenses used to initiate the invasion served distinct purposes, such as providing a semblance of legitimacy, while also drawing initial attention away from the real power brokers and stakeholders (Fallows). Those stakeholders included individuals with special interests in maintaining the stability of oil reserves in Iraq, as well as those with a broader interest in ensuring American hegemony throughout the world.

Oil, Resource Wars, and Postwar Reconstruction

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 marks what some believe to be the first of potentially many "resource wars" of the new millennium (Ahmed). Iraq possessed not only a critical quantity of oil but also a strategic geographic location at the crossroads between East and West. China and India were vying for access to oil supplies as their economies grew exponentially. Saddam Hussein controlled all oil within Iraq but, unlike the Saudis, maintained "erratic and unpredictable energy export policies" that were frustrating for American interests and not conducive to the management of American political hegemony.

As many analysts suggest, oil revenues were likely secondary to political power in the decision to invade. The invasion was ultimately about "stabilising global energy supplies as a whole by ensuring the free flow of Iraqi oil to world markets" (Ahmed). Proof of this goal can be found in the postwar reconstruction plans and procedures, which were decidedly not humanitarian but capitalist in orientation. The American government presented "extensive plans for postwar reconstruction... but they did not consider humanitarian and societal issues of any significance, focusing instead on maintaining the authoritarian structures of Saddam's brutal regime after his removal, while upgrading Iraq's oil infrastructure to benefit foreign investors" (Ahmed).

Oil fields that had once been state-owned were privatized, enabling American energy concerns like Halliburton to wedge into Iraq. With Dick Cheney as Vice President and the chief "decider" with regard to Iraq policy, oil cannot be dismissed as a conspiracy theory. In fact, a survey revealed that 93% of scholars and foreign policy experts believed Cheney was the "most important decision maker" behind the invasion (Kramer and Thrall 3).