The war looks different when viewed from different points of view.

Why did the US government want to attack Saddam Hussein?
Following the attack on New York and Washington on the 11th of September 2001 there seems to have been a desire for revenge and retribution against the people who organized the attacks. The US government tried to catch Osama bin Laden, a former citizen of Saudi Arabia and Muslim fanatic who was living in Afghanistan. Although the government in Afghanistan that had hosted Osama was overthrown in a short campaign, the US forces failed to capture Osama or show evidence that he was dead.

One explanation for the war in Iraq might be that the people comprising the US government under George W Bush had a previous plan before the events of 11 September to remove Saddam Hussein as 'unfinished business' from the Kuwait war. Did they bring out this plan and implement it because they had failed to catch Osama? No evidence has been presented publicly to show that Saddam Hussein had any contact with Osama bin Laden. None of the hijackers were Iraqis, and most of them were Saudi citizens.

Is it an example of 'Don't just stand there, do something'?

How does the war look from the Islamic world?
A large number of Muslims clearly see the US attack on Iraq as merely the latest example of western countries' hostility to Islam, being the latest of a series that began with the medieval Crusades, and was continued by the colonial regimes of the 18th and 19th centuries. Although Saddam presided over the most complete Totalitarian regime since those of Stalin and Hitler, and was in practice indifferent to Islam, he appears to be regarded by many Arabs outside Iraq as a champion of the Arab world and opponent of the west, especially of the American support for Israel. Iraq, though not necessarily Saddam, was also supported by the Islamists.

How does the war look from Europe?
The peoples of Europe were mostly hostile to the start of the war. Some governments - Britain, Spain and some eastern European - supported the US, often against public opposition. The British government sent troops. France, Germany and Russia were very hostile, even to the idea of a war supported by the Security Council of the United Nations - their opposition, however, was very popular with their voters. In April 2004 the Spanish government that had supported the invasion was replaced in an election by the opposition. All Spanish troops were then withdrawn from Iraq.

Does the current US government have a desire to use its overwhelming power to dominate and shape the world?
There is some evidence for this as the people who formed the administration of George W Bush had written about their wishes before coming to power in the dubious 'election' of 2000. See New American Century

Will this lead to a polarized world in which the west's technological power is used to hold down an impoverished and powerless mass of non-western peoples? If so, there is trouble ahead as the powerless will use the means available to them to fight back. Thus various kinds of unconventional warfare may become commoner.

What is the role of oil?
As long as oil remains the main source of energy in the industrialized world the control of the wells must remain important, especially as the expected peak of production arrives and is passed (possibly in 2004). It is not yet clear who will control Iraq's oil after the war. In the 1970s the revolutionary government nationalised the oil industry. It is suspected that western oil companies would like to see it privatised. Would the benefits then go to the Iraqi people, or to westerners?

This article suggests there is a plan for western (United States) oil companies to get control of the oil fields, and also of the profits. Even if the present interim government signs such agreements, it seems unlikely that a genuinely independent Iraqi government would keep to them.

Is the occupation of Iraq a success?
Many US troops have been killed in ambushes. Thieves or guerrillas have damaged power transmission lines, oil and water pipelines, so that basic services got worse than they were before the war (when they were not good). The occupation regime claims that water and electricity have improved recently (Nov. 2003). In 2004 guerrilla activity in the form of suicide bombers against American soldiers and Iraqis working for the occupation authorities seem to be increasing (February 2004).

28 June 2004 the US administrator left and was replaced by an Interim Iraqi government 'advised' by a US Ambassador.

Elections produced an assembly that eventually produced a second interim government which supervised the writing of a new constitution. This was passed by a narrow majority in a referendum. Generally, the Kurd and Shi'ite provinces voted for, and the Sunnis voted against, but not in numbers enough to prevent its adoption. New assembly elections are to follow in December 2005. This time Sunnis voted as well as Shi'ites and Kurds. Only in May 2006 was a government formed.