Andrew Sullivan's 'Simple' Question (or Two Questions, Actually)

Andrew Sullivan is polling his readership regarding two perplexities of the Iraqi War:

Why did the administration leave weapons sites unguarded for so long? Why did they not send enough troops to secure the borders? I'm still baffled. And rattled. Can anyone explain?

It is an interesting analytical challenge. Here is my response:

My answer to your 'simple' question is that the invasion wasn't about WMD and it wasn't about international terrorism. After all, you never invade countries that may have nuclear arms, for obvious reasons (e.g., N. Korea). Iraq didn't have nuclear arms, and the Bush Administration knew it in advance. Thus, there were no nuclear weapons sites to secure worth making it a top priority of the U.S. military.

Regarding less fearsome chemical and biological weapons, the Administration expected our military to decapitate the Baathist leadership and thus paralyze use of the weapons until they could be secured, along with the nuclear materials, at leisure. Compared to the rest of the Arab world, Iraq's totalitarian past and unusual disconnect from international jihadist movements, plus Sadam's paranoia, made transfer of weapons to terrorists seem a rather remote possibility. And we didn't anticipate anarchy, so rampant theft wasn't anticipated either. We feared cooperation between Baathists and terrorists, but those links didn't get forged until after our invasion.

After the war, securing Iraq's borders would have meant interfering with the Najaf pilgrimage and coffin trade, principally with Iran, which would have been injurious to the interests of our favored ex-patriot, Ahmad Chalabi. Besides, cross-border traffic has always served as a subversive anti-Baathist influence in Iraqi politics, and we favor free movement after decades of dictatorship. So the borders remain unpatrolled.

So why did we invade? A grateful Iraqi population would assist the U.S.:

• secure physical control of large oil fields (more important than ever as we reach peak worldwide pumping capacity);
• serve as an experimental laboratory to introduce democracy and make the region safe for international business;
• defang destabilizing Arab anti-Westernism and anti-Semitism with a successful example of U.S./Arab cooperation;
• serve as a geographic base for the U.S. military.

All worthwhile objectives, very daring, but completely at odds with the ancient and modern history of Iraq and the region, and thus with no possibility of success. Americans have a blind spot in this regard: we think that fortune will favor effort, but 'tain't always so. Plus it doesn't address international jihadism at all: September 11th hardly factors in at all, except as a providential opportunity. It was Woodrow Wilson all over again, but with Pottery Barn rules in effect. What Pandora's Box have we broken?