Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

According to those who interviewed the principal decision makers, your "naive" belief is roughly correct. For example, from Mark Danner's recent article (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/mar/06/darknes...) --

"According to those attending National Security Council meetings in the days after September 11,

  The primary impetus for invading Iraq…was to make an example 
  of [Saddam] Hussein, to create a demonstration model to guide 
  the behavior of anyone with the temerity to acquire destructive
  weapons or, in any way, flout the authority of the United States."
In other words, single out one of the bullies, attack him, knock him out, and by so doing, scare the rest of the bullies. I'm not saying it was either a good idea or an effective idea, but such was was the strategic thinking (if we can call it that).



It was strategic thinking. One could argue whether it worked or not, but it was an application of game theory to international relations.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: