One thing I've talked a lot about, or at least thought a lot about, is the motivations for going to war in the first place. Here's an interesting take on that line of thought.

I can definitely believe that doing it "just because we can" is one reason to go to war, but not the only one. To look for motivations, I think you need to look at the individual players.

G Dubya: revenge, oil, polls, because he can, and because he was told it's a good idea.

Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and company: these guys are acting out neo-conservative thought. They want to reshape the world in America's image. In many ways, to me, they are democracy's form of Christian missionaries. In their minds, they know what is best for the world (i.e. American democracy), and they are willing to do what it takes to get people in line with this - whether they like it or not. As America, the only remaining superpower, they believe that we have an obligation to do this.

Cheney: I'm sure oil is in there for him (Halliburton isn't doing too bad, despite losing one big contract), and he's also bought into the neo-conservative line of thinking.

Colin Powell: Originally in favor of containment. I think part of his change of heart was due to a feeling of betrayal from some of our European aliies. The main reason for the change, I think, was merely him being beaten into submission and being forced to follow the Administration.

The American people: A few people probably genuinely wanted freedom for Iraqis, but most were first and foremost concerned with revenge for September 11th. See, we know we're probably never going to find Osama, and many people think that most of the September 11th hijackers came from Iraq (and not Saudi Arabia, which is the reality). So, getting revenge by taking out Iraq was good enough for many people.