An interesting theory.

Independent Argument Now, I might well have joined the protests – an attack on Iraq seems ill-advised for all the well-rehearsed reasons – but for one thing. I just do not believe that well-publicised US preparations for attacking Iraq are anything other than an elaborate feint on the part of the Bush administration, in likely collusion with the British government. Its purpose is to neutralise the threat from Iraq without the use of miilitary force.
The whole edifice rests on the premise, more readily accepted in Europe than in the US, that the Bush administration is a gun-toting bully, ready to use force at the slightest provocation. While the belligerent language used by Mr Bush and his senior defence officials fosters that image, the reality is different. Mr Bush displayed extreme caution before ordering US forces into Afghanistan. The operation was mounted only after careful planning and its primary aim was not to remove the Taleban, but to catch those responsible for 11 September. Contingency plans were in place for the event that the Taleban fell and for the capture of Kabul, but only through the Northern Alliance forces.