The second reason for invading Iraq

The second reason I believe Bush invaded Iraq: The psychological makeup of the men ruling America.

Some might say that Bush wants to get Saddam because, as he famously said, “He tried to kill my Daddy.” While I don’t doubt that accurately plumbs the depths of the president’s thinking on the subject, Bush isn’t the only one plotting the course here.

We’d all like to believe that people (including ourselves) always act rationally. The fact is, however, that our actions are controlled by our psychological makeup, as much as by our reason. So what is the psychology of the Baby Bush? It’s tough to make a truly accurate assessment without knowing the man personally. And I’d say the chances of my getting to know Bush are minimal – certainly if he asks Dick Cheney (whom I have met) whether he’d enjoy meeting me.

What we know for sure is that the Bush administration is completely controlled by what are known as neoconservatives. It’s misleading, of course, to use the terms “liberal” and “conservative” since neither label represents anything like a consistent philosophical worldview. It’s been said that neoconservatives are liberals who’ve been mugged by reality. But I think it’s more accurate to define them as ultra-nationalists who are generally sympathetic to the conservatives, but with more polish, and intellectual patina. It might be good to look at how their minds work by comparing them to liberals, conservatives and libertarians.

Libertarians share some practical views with both liberals (who have a purported belief in social and intellectual liberty), and conservatives (who claim to have a belief in economic liberty). Both liberals and conservatives, however, tend to dislike and distrust libertarians. The liberals feel threatened by libertarians’ sincerely held views advocating economic freedom; the conservatives feel threatened by their sincerely held views advocating social and intellectual freedom.

The neocons tend to be the polar opposite of libertarians – they’re authoritarians. They’re like liberals because they believe in economic controls. And they’re like conservatives because they believe in social and intellectual controls. The neocons believe they actually know what’s best for everybody in all areas of life, and they’re happy to use the power of the state to enforce their opinions.

Other than their own righteousness, one of the few things the neocons really believe in is the American Empire. And, in that light, they support Big Business because it pays taxes, co-operates closely with Big Government, and thereby extends its reach. They’re often for free-market solutions not because they’re ethically sound or promote individual freedom, but because they create wealth that can then be deployed by the American Empire.

They love the military-industrial complex and the National Security State. They believe that their (bent and distorted, in my opinion) view of what America is all about should be imposed on the rest of the world while we have the power to do it. They think of themselves as tough and shrewd and realistic. Which is why, I suppose, they’re called neoconservatives instead of neoliberals. They’re in the tradition of people like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson or “Scoop” Jackson. They’re all for the Welfare State (for both corporations and individuals) – not for so-called humanitarian reasons, but because they think it cements the Nation (or should I say Homeland) together.

In my opinion, they’re the very worst, and most dangerous, kind of people to have anywhere near power. Especially when they’re closely associated with (or actually are) religious fundamentalists who think they’re on a mission from God to smite the infidel.

One reason why religion is an especially dangerous admixture to authoritarianism and nationalism in government officials – either here, or in the Muslim world – is that it makes them especially susceptible to what might be called “deity-speak.” They’re programmed to see themselves as God’s temporal representatives, authorized to interpret the Heavenly Will. Listen to Bush or Ashcroft talk sometime. Their speech is full of imperatives, using words like “should,” “ought” and “must.” They have a fixed idea of how the world “should” be and, By God, they’re going to make sure you, me and (especially) those swarthy furriners toe the line.

Believe it or not, I get hate mail for writing stuff like this and, as often as not, my correspondents quote the Bible as proof for their arguments. But perhaps I shouldn’t be so surprised. America is after all the most religious country in the West. Things haven’t really changed that much from the time of the Scopes Monkey Trial, when H.L. Mencken remarked: “It’s probably impossible to throw a Bible from a speeding train anywhere in America without hitting a Christian in the head with it.”

You’d think it couldn’t get much worse than having militaristic, nationalistic authoritarians in control. But combine that with self-assigned righteousness and a real whiff of religious fervor, and you’re looking at big trouble. Especially when you’re dealing (as we are) with relatively primitive cultures for whom their own religion is the centerpiece of life. And those religions have a history of mutual antagonism from Day One.

Expect the Forever War to keep ramping up. It’s really just begun.

Doug Casey

Doug Casey is the author of "Crisis Investing," which spent 26 weeks as No. 1 on the New York Times Best-Seller list. He is also editor and publisher of the International Speculator, one of the nation's most established and highly respected publications on gold, silver and other natural resource investments. Doug has made his subscribers millions with his in-depth research, right-on perceptions and contrarian attitude. Learn more about becoming a subscriber to the International Speculator. Read more of Doug Casey's articles here.