The depressing thing is that it never had to be this way. As demonstrated by two recent must-read books -- State of Denial by Bob Woodward, and Fiasco by Washington Post Pentagon correspondent Thomas E. Ricks -- this war could have had a happy ending (at least from a humanitarian perspective) had Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz listened to the many experts who warned them to put more boots on the ground. Instead, America invaded with what Ricks calls "perhaps the worst war plan in American history." George W. Bush's war cabinet wanted a revolution, but they wanted it on the cheap. Iraqis are paying for this penury with their lives.This was clear to any half-competent military observer, and even incompetent proto-bloggers like me. (Look to the sidebar - I didn't start this blog thingy until 2004.) These men were waging a war that was as much ideological as it was military - Rumsfeld wanted to prove his theories about cheap, light, mobile war without any of the messy, labor- and time-intensive work of occupation. There was a specific goal in mind: Proving that America could wage multiple low-cost wars, so that war would be more appealing to American policymakers.
In short, Iraq was supposed to be the opening salvo in a series of wars designed to a) make militarism the default policy of the US government, and b) cow America's enemies by showing how hopeless it was to stand up to America's military might. If you needed a single word, "imperialism" wouldn't be too far off.
For those who had eyes to see it, this was all out in the open. For those who refused to see it - and still refuse to see it - no evidence will ever suffice.
(Thanks for the link, Olaf!)