If Iraq were not invaded? -

[LollysStokeWorth]

Where would we be if we had not invaded Iraq back in 2003?

Would Saddam Hussein have done anything dangerous? As terrible as he was, he almost seems preferable for Iraq, compared to what is happening there right now.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Depends what you mean by "something dangerous". He'd certainly have kept torturing, imprisoning and repressing his own citizens. Whether he'd have done anything outside Iraq's borders is far more doubtful.

 

[NegaCWC]

Where would we be if we had not invaded Iraq back in 2003?

Would Saddam Hussein have done anything dangerous? As terrible as he was, he almost seems preferable for Iraq, compared to what is happening there right now.

In order to answer this question we need to ask another one; was the Iraq war a factor behind the Arab spring? There are argument for and against this notion, I myself am not knowledgeable enough to take a side on this issue. If we the assume that the Arab spring would have happened regardless of whether or not Iraq was invaded, we must ask how well Saddam would have handled a mass upheaval in his country. I gather that the Iraqi Army was severly weakened by the Gulf War and the sanctions that were placed on Iraq in the 90s, but according to this book it was still relatively strong around 1999. As is noted on page 70, the Iraqi military was still capable of supressing Shia and Kurdish uprisings against the regime in the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War. If Saddam was still in power today, I don't see why his army wouldn't have been able to destroy an insurrection similar to the ones that are currently occuring in the Arab world. The only way I can see a rebellion being threat to his regime is if it would have recieved significant backing from a powerful foreign power. If Saddam would have been removed in this decade by a violent revolution I believe Iraq would have descended into the same violent chaos that is plaguing it today.

 

[XYZpdq]

If Iraq wasn't invaded Saddam would have used that Stargate he found.

 

[*Asterisk*]

The Arab Spring was going to happen eventually. The "secularist" governments of the Arab world were always horrible. Nobody wants to live under the likes of them. But one of the problems with governments who love killing and torturing people to stay in power is that generally the people most likely to fight them are either desperate or insane. Laugh about the 72 virgins all you like, but there's a reason Islamists are willing to endure having a member of the Republican guard burn every inch of their gums before they reenact A Serbian Film on their ass. Moderate people don't wanna have a quick death be their best option.

The only thing I can see changing is a civil war where Saddam Hussein, or one of his sons, is commander of one of the armies: Followed by a horrific purge enacted by whoever wins the conflict.

It was definitely a mistake to leave Iraq hanging. We'd made serious progress, and flushed it all away for short term gain.

 

[Ariel]

I'm surprised that none of the intellectuals posting in this thread have brought up the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

I'm surprised that none of the intellectuals posting in this thread have brought up the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottoman Empire is no more relevant to a discussion of 1990s Iraq than the Austro-Hungarian Empire is to a discussion of modern Ukraine

 

[K>C]

I could see Saddam funding the Syrian rebels while Assad funded the Shia rebels. Iran is going to send the Badr Organization in and the fertile crescent shall be in flames.