The purpose of the invasion was a) to install a puppet regime under Ahmed Chalabi which would provide the US with basing rights, give preferential treatment to US oil firms, and recognize Israel and b) more broadly, to "shock and awe" states resisting the Empire (chiefly Iran, but also North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba) into bowing to US dictates by demonstrating overwhelming US military power and the will of the new Bush Administration to deploy it wherever and whenever it pleased.
In all respects, the occupation of Iraq by US ground forces was a spectacular failure - the "demonstration effect" in fact demonstrating the limited power of the US to impose its will rather what was intended…
Carrol wrote:
> This nicely illustrates why I said we perhaps had no common ground on which
> to debate. You are claiming the capacity for reading minds.
Not at all. You can discern the political objectives of individuals and groups, not by reading minds, but the public statements of generals, politicians and court intellectuals as well as the relevant programmatic documents (eg. the Project for a New American Century), informed by a good understanding of history and the current conjuncture.
Here's one such effort written on the eve of the invasion a decade ago, reprinted in the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/the-meaning-of-shock-and-_b_2844688.html
You engage from time to time in attributing motives to individuals and groups, do you not?