Eddie,

I think you have an hypothesis, not a theory, but no biggie. Personally, I doubt internal guilt and the desire to create an heroic legacy has anything to do with Bushco invading Iraq. Actually, I think it has more in common with Arthur Miller's explanation given in his ~1970s novel titled, "Why we are in Vietnam." The final three words of text are, "Vietnam, hot damn!" Of course, you need the surrounding context to really get the meaning.

Lots of people actively and passively avoided military service during the Vietnam conflict for the simple reason that is wasn't anything like WWII. Vietnam, just like Iraq today, had nothing to do with national security, the number one reason, and a consistent stipulation for a "just war," for those who care about the moral implications of invoking warfare.

Most of the Vietnam era draft resisters had some education beyond high school, even though college attendence provided deferrments from the military draft. A problem with education is that it produces an informed citizenry. Educated people were aware that the Vietnam conflict was based on principles and concepts other than national security. First was the communist scare hysteria of the on-going cold war. Analytical minds wondered just how scared it made sense to be of countries that could not even feed themselves. (The record is clear that not one communist country has ever successfully fed its own population.) The second was that the Vietnam conflict was good for business, corroborating the truth about the military-industrial complex. Anyway, there's lots, lots more about that sad time in the nation's history, as there undoubtably will be about this time after the Iraq conflict passes.

I think the explanation for invading Iraq, if it ever becomes known, will be far too simple. Probably along the lines of unfinished business from Gulf War I, Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr., and it's good for business. Can't prove it of course, but that's my estimate of the situation.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.