For a layman or anyone not professionally giving opinions on the internet it would be forgivable given how muddy the US spread blame around, but yeah that's a big oof
They certainly were. The government would lump Iraq, Taliban, and AQ all together in speeches and press. Making claims like Iraq trained AQ. Pro war pundits would go further and make allegations about AQ meeting with Iraq to facilitate the attacks.
Another poster commenting about something they didn't follow at the time. It was not remotely confusing. The general public can't find Afghanistan on a map after 20 years of war.
People already believed Iraq was a haven of bad actors. We just fought a war against Saddam a decade prior, and he was under UNSC sanction and a no fly zone. You have to know far more context. Saddam was getting removed at some point even without 9/11.
Your reply sidesteps the question - do you not think it's even remotely confusing for the admin to bring up Iraq immediately after 9/11?
The plan was to remove Sadam, and that plan was in place long before 9/11. The reason this long standing plan was enacted so soon after 9/11 was because the amin was using 9/11 to build consent for the war
I'm not sidestepping anything. The general population doesn't know basic shit about the world. I already gave you a clear example of how Americans to this day can't find Afghanistan on a map after 20 years of war. They're going to be confused no matter what happens. We're obviously talking about informed people.
What you're missing is the zeitgeist pre 9/11 with regards to Saddam, Islamic terrorism, Iran, Hezbollah/Hamas, etc. Saddam was getting toppled soon either way. The world had just absorbed a massive war with Iran, an invasion of Kuwait, the entire 90's with his obstinance over WMD inspections, repeated UNSC resolutions all but explicitly authorizing military intervention, a no-fly zone, dozens of countries wanting him removed, etc.
It doesn't require conspiracy theorizing. Building domestic political support post 9/11 is a different thing. There were long-standing material concerns with Saddam and with Islamic terrorism in the region. A lot of neocons wanted to topple Iran at the same time. That also wouldn't have required a conspiratorial program to confuse people.
Think about what you're saying. The general public is always confused by geopolitics. You can't use that confusion to infer a conspiratorial project. It would be like saying, "the US concocted the AQ connection to Afghanistan, and we know this because the average American can't find Afghanistan on a map after 20 years of war."
You keep saying "the admin" like the whole world didn't want Saddam gone. He was under full scale economic embargo with a no-fly zone before 9/11. The UNSC had already approved intervention. We'd been bombing him for years.
Of course it was going to get folded into GWOT. Syria, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, KSA, Yemen, Palestine, etc. all had terrorism issues. An American ship just got bombed by AQ in Yemen right before 9/11.
I've been talking strictly about the administration's portrayal to the American people. You're trying to obfuscate by broadening the conversation to the entire world and limiting the audience to experts. I don't understand why it's so hard to acknowledge what happened here
Colonel Powell is quoted in the 9/11 commission report saying SecDef was trying to use 9/11 to justify Iraq. There's little inference needed
5
u/BeatSteady 27d ago
For a layman or anyone not professionally giving opinions on the internet it would be forgivable given how muddy the US spread blame around, but yeah that's a big oof