I find it surprising that still, 3 years later, we don't know exactly why Bush invaded Iraq, nor indeed, the motivations for most of his actions. Of course, other people were involved in the decision, and of course, the reasons offered up have changed radically over time. But it's striking how the many books written on the fiasco differ in motivation.
I'm not a psychologist, nor do I have any training in psychology. But I know there are many on Dkos with such training. And I'm asking for speculation on what Bush's motivations were/are, and where they will take him - on national issues and afterwards. The Woodward book seems to me to have finally gotten the pile of evidence high enough to draw some conclusions.
More after the jump.
I remember very well that when Iraq was invaded, I believed it was a consequence of the entire Bush team to redo the Gulf War conclusion. That they absolutely could not bear that "Saddam" was still out there, in power, and laughing at them. A remark by Bush that he couldn't understand why "Saddam" was still in power, and his father was not, partly confirms this.
But much more has been revealed since then, and it's possible to revisit it now. I think there's enough out there to psychologically figure George Bush out.
The only reason that makes any "sense" for invading Iraq was to gain control of the oil supply. (Leaving aside that I consider invasion for control of natural resources an immoral act and no longer an effective way for states to maintain power). Certainly, that explanation has been a favored one on Dkos. But it certainly seems there were other motives that make even less sense.
The one thing I gather from all these publications is that EVERYBODY who was running things in the Bush administration thought that Iraq would be easy. I remember "weeks not months" and so many similar statements. Why did they think this? Why did Bush never think about consequences of the invasion? Was he compliant to Cheney? Overwhelmed by Rumsfield? I would have thought so, but then, why is he so insistent that Iraq is his idea?
Why is Bush so free of doubt? It must take POWERFUL repression to maintain his complete certainty that he is right. The evidence that he is wrong is mountainous by now. Or is his doubt coming out in near-hysterical accusations against anyone who opposes him - they are "ignoring the safety of the US," "aiding terrorists," - soon he will be accusing theme of being inhabited by demons. It doesn't register with him that in a democracy, the leader has strong opponents.
What will happen to Bush? If control of one or both houses passes to the Democrats, will he brazen out his loss of control? Begin a retreat into self-pitying withdrawal? Give in to self-doubt and begin drinking again? I really don't know - and I should after 6 years of this miserable presidency.
Iraq is going to get worse. How will Bush react?
I do believe that Bush doesn't care about the vindication of history, nor his legacy. Nor do I believe that he will spend even a minute worrying about the enormous problems he will leave the US with. But why? I know that life has held no consequences for him, ever. No matter what he did, he never had to sacrifice financially or personally. We are seeing someone who unconsciously assumes he is untouchable.
I think after 2008 he will withdraw quietly to his ranch, rarely leave it except to attend fundamentalist religious functions where his sense of self is still reinforced and maybe raise money, and take no further part in the political life of the nation. Others will deal with what he has left.