Early on in the invasion of Iraq Donald Rumsfeld was asked why attention was being shifted from Afghanistan.  He replied that there were "better targets" in Iraq.  The reply struck me at the time as facile, cynical, unhelpful.  What I did not know until I read Frank Rich's column in the NY Times (Oct. 23,2005) is that the American people were losing interest in the "war" on terror.  The targets in Iraq were better becuse they were more visible--houses, mosques, walls, streets, and--famously--statues and posters.  The targets there were more interesting than the empty, foreboding terrain of Tora Bora.  The war in Afghanistan was, frankly, boring.  The combat in Iraq was "better" because it was more telegenic.  Every evening the American people got to see vengeance enacted, our troops kick down doors, evildoers get  whacked.

 

But there is more to this than re-igiting the country's interest in the "war" on terror.

 

Rich writes, "By Memorial Day 2002 a USA Today poll found that just 4 out of 10 Americans  believed that the United States was winning the war on terror ."  The Bush administration was in trouble, and the elecitons of 2004 were in jeopardy.  A large gesture was required, and the invasion of Iraq was thought to be just what was needed.

This, then, is a fifth reason why the Salesman ordered the invasion.  In addition to the three reasons given by David Wallechinsky, and a fourth--concern for oil--the fifth is (could it be anything else?) the political  concern to win the election of 2004, and maintain the Republican dominance of the American Government.