But it misses one point. A true nationalist would not have been deluded into thinking Iraq had WMD in the first place.

That is to say, a true nationalist would not have had the burning desire to invade Iraq, which the neocons had for as much as a decade before 9/11 and at least since 1998, and therefore would have been able to look any Iraq threat more objectively.

Now, I think that desire to attack Iraq came from their emotional attachment to Israel, but others think it is the “permanent revolution” thing. Both are possible, and it probably depends on the particular neocon at any given time.

Either way, a true nationalist would not have gone “looking” for the opportunity to invade Iraq and therefore would not have misrepresented the case for WMD (either intentionally or from delusion).

At first glance, Roach, above, gets my view just about right. It’s kind of the John Derbyshire view.

I’ll try to find a moment, later, to post something that shows at least a little more sign of intelligent life.

This view ignores kinship, culture, and religion, for starters, all the particulars to which the old conservatism gave weight.

To this universalism was added fear, easy enough to stir up post 9/11. Both the official rationales (WMD, Saddman’s atrocities, spreading democracy, collaboration with AQ) and the “real” reasons some give for the war (subsidy for the military-induatrial complex, oil, intimidating the Saudis, GWB’s Oedipal derangement, the influence of American Likudniks, for starters) seem flimsy, at least by hindsight.

Mencken saw the profit potential of the gullibility of the American people. Only a few foresaw the sheer stupidity of our rulers. Shouldn’t Yale be declaring bankruptcy about now?

As for why a purely nationalist war would have been better: easy. We would have come, smashed, cowed, and then left. This is a better world, with more deterrence and psychic value than drawn out utopian occupations where Iraqis can elect theocrats to insult us.

I was only 19 at the time, but I recall that the major justification for the Iraq War was self-preservation. We were told (in ominous tones by Cheney et al) that if we didn’t invade Iraq immediately we would face a mushroom cloud. The American public supported the invasion of Iraq because they thought their personal security was at stake. And of course the Bush Administration knew that an argument based on national security would have broad based support, while imperialism did not.

That’s why WMDs was the major item used to justify invasion.
Democracy promotion and Saddam being an evil man were ancillary justifications. They helped the case for war along but were not necessary for its rhetorical appeal.

Now its certainly true that liberal universalism was key to generating support among liberals, but I cannot imagine liberal opposition to the war being a decisive factor one way or the other (and to be fair there was vigorous opposition from liberal quarters). Theoretically, it is possible that we may not have gone to war quite so quickly but I believe that enters a realm of pure speculation.