Here's libertarian Lew Rockwell's take on this week's story about the peace offer made by the Iraqis, from his article "War Guilt in Iraq":
The Iraqis were prepared to hand over a man being held in Baghdad on suspicion of involvement in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. They were ready to sign up in the US-led global war on terrorism. They were ready to offer "full support for any U.S. plan" in the Arab-Israeli peace process. It gets more astounding. Iraq was prepared to offer US companies "first priority as it relates to Iraq oil, mining rights."
---
The list alone reveals another interesting component so far uncommented upon. As you go through the list of concessions - all now in the hands of Senate investigators - it seems that government leaders in Iraq, including Saddam himself, were as confused as anyone else was about the real reason the US was threatening war. Was it about terrorism? Ok, we'll fight terrorism. Dictatorship? Ok, we'll hold free elections. Iraqi support of the Palestinian cause? Ok, we'll switch sides. WMDs? We would gladly dismantle them if we had them. Oil? You can have it.
Since all the official reasons for was are either false or nonsensical, I'm as puzzled as the Iraqis, and the confusion invites cynical speculation. What the Iraqis couldn't offer W was boosted poll numbers and an invasion platform for the rest of the Mideast. Some have proposed a "perfect storm" of small bad reasons.
I've also seen a parallel to the War of Jenkins' Ear when the Brits went to war against the Spanish in the 18th century after a merchant captain appeared before Parliament. Jenkins said he'd been boarded and treated rudely by the Spanish navy, and a Spanish sailor had cut off his ear with a sword. He held up the ear in a jar of brine (shades of Colin Powell at the UN). After a few wasteful skirmishes, Parliament wondered why they'd ever gotten so worked up over Jenkins' ear, rather like John Kerry today. Any other suggestions?