The motivations for the US war in Iraq of 2003 are often dismissed as strictly material: the drive for hegemony, the search for security, the need for energy supplies or profits for the military-industrial complex. In our view there are two main reasons which argue for a better appreciation of the question of gratitude—the search for an improved image in the eyes of others in the run-up to that conflict.

Firstly, in our view, the rational reason for the war resembles more a question of identities than a scenario which concentrates on maximising material resources. The political and economic benefits which resulted from this war are debatable. On the other hand, the symbolic benefit—the humiliation of Saddam Hussein—is undeniable. The image of American power which is both idealised (‘the beacon of world liberty’) and virile (the self-image of being ‘strong’) could be confirmed by an armed intervention against Iraq.

The confirmation of this identity was important for emotional reasons. The US decision-makers preserved their self-esteem by eliminating the regime which had tarnished the image of American power. The preservation of a good image was also taken into account in the US strategic calculation. Even the decision-makers, motivated by the search for profit, had to make it appear that the war against Iraq was morally acceptable. Secondly, the war was born from reciprocal humiliations during the crisis. Far from it being premeditated, the final decision to intervene in Iraq was probably taken by the US administration in December 2002; in no way was it before September 2001.