Atrios asks "Why did we attack Iraq?"

There are two cultures at war with each other in the U.S., and there have been since the nation began. Digby has documented the Two Tribes of America, one of which dominates the American South and the other which tends to dominate the rest of America. The culture of the South includes the attitude of low taxes, small government, low government services, and prefers government solutions to problems that include a lot of police and military activity.

The other tribe has grown out of the U.S. Northeast and Midwest, and includes believing in universal public education and government support for the economy. Needless to say it included the belief in higher taxes as needed to support expanded government service. It should be no surprise that the American industrial revolution grew out of the culture of the northern tribe.

So what does this have to do with Atrios' question why we attacked Iraq? This was George Bush's explanation, offered in Baghdad:

BAGHDAD -- Arriving in Baghdad today for a farewell visit, President Bush staunchly defended a war that has taken far more time, money and lives than anticipated, saying the conflict "has not been easy" but was necessary for U.S. security, Iraqi stability and "world peace."

Atrios points out the Obvious. That statement is a lie. The invasion of Iraq was not required for U.S. security, Iraqi stability and "world peace" and in fact undermined each of those goals.

The real answer is that in 1994 the Southern American culture took over Congress under Newt Gingrich and in 2000 the Southern Tribe took over the White House under George Bush. Their solution to problems is to blow them up or send in the military.

The problem they perceives was the decline of world oil, the economic basis of American hegemony over much of the world, at the same time time that third world nations were actively resisting American hegemony. While the third world nations include more than just the Islamic culture, the Islamic nations sit on top of a large chunk of the world's oil supply and can make a lot of trouble for American economic and military hegemony.

Iraq was not the center of that resistance. It was simply the weakest of the Islamic oil states, and so was seen by the Southern American tribe as the perfect subject for a demonstration invasion by the American military.

The excuses were dreamed up to justify the previously made decision (published by the Project for the New American Century) to invade Iraq. 9/11 presented the perfect opportunity, even though the 9/11 attack was conducted by primarily Saudi Arabian individuals financed by Saudi Arabian and trained in Afghanistan under the auspices of the Taliban, a Sunni Muslim extremist organization supported by elements of the Pakistanian Inter-Services Intelligence Agency.

This was a cultural decision by the Southern U.S. cultural tribe, not a rational defense of America or an effort to ensure Peace. America attacked Iraq specifically to demonstrate that they would and could do so. Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld said so when he described the invasion of Iraq as an effort to apply "Shock and Awe."

See? That's not all that hard to understand. But the question that Atrios asks is a little different. It's not whether the true reasons can easily be discerned, it's whether the teachers in 80 or so years will dare to teach that truth in high school.

Probably not. I don't recall my high school teaching about Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal and the Trail of Tears, and I was in high school at least 120 years after the Indian Removal.

As usual in 80 or more years American Exceptionalism will trump the truth.