If no Iraq War?

Post Reply New Topic

What would it be like if we had never invaded Iraq?

Many people oppose the Iraq war and feel "Bush lied people died."

But few people seem to consider what the consequences of not invading might have been.

When people say "Saddam Hussein was a bad guy" they really are giving him too much credit. He was the only dictator in my life time who invaded two countries and used chemical weapons on his own people.

While he had no WMDs, I think they were his ultimate goal. And even if there was no Bin Laden/Saddam alliance it probably would have happened in a few years. They both hated America, Saudi Arabia and Israel. The fact that ISIS was basically founded and run by Saddam's henchmen is proof such an alliance would have happend.

Even if Saddam just kept a lid on all the craziness in his country, we could look forward to one of his awful sons succeeding him.

What would the world be like with Saddam still in power? Better?worse?

I don't think it's helpful to conflate these two questions.

It might have been possible to depose Saddam and ensure that his sons did not come to power without invading Iraq.

I think he was a very nasty person and the world is better off without him, but he did not spring from a vacuum and we have seen other nasty people rise from the aftermath (e.g. Zarqawi) I think the destruction of the Ba'athist state has not been positive for the region or the world, despite the positive aspect of getting rid of Saddam.

ISIS was not about to happen while the Ba'ath party was in power. The war in Yemen may be an unintended consequence of the invasion of Iraq and subsequent empowerment of Iranian-backed Shias.

Also have to add what would have happened if we had flipped the bird to our first bein invited then nervous allies&UN and just done a full out imperial take over of Iraq the first time there and let it go in 4-5 years after stabilizing and repairing damages of war? The Nuclear arsenal was still a work in progress (55X then)but his facilities we raided had more bio-weapon research going on and chemical. That is why they had so many taking that untested crappy pill that caused everyone to get sick. (on side not I re-fused that and the expried "for vet use only" anthrax "vaccines"

We were pressured while changing which monkey was in the oval office , so left. And our huge vacuum let in the outsiders, the terrorists and fringe factions as well as making Saddam go full monty as a dictator in his fear of a CIA assassination (which seeing how WE sent him to School of the Americas and supported his rise to power... he had legit concern). The first time citizens had a pleased hope at our presence. They were not so welcoming and trusting afterwards since our supporters local were left holding the bag. That generation of soldiers were ruder . "They all have an AK with govt blessing, why don't hey save themselves?" Um cuz, ammo, material availabilty and fact you go be a freedom fighter and not take family- they WILL bear the price. Which is also how IS gets so strong so fast. Easy to say F U! Neva joining: as single. Not so much when they flash pictures of your kids at school and you wife hanging the wash. : C Average Joe Sunni and Shi (least in early 90s when I was there) only thinks other side is wrong and maybe debate over a smoke, but are busy living, working.

I don't think the Iraq war was a good idea. Understatement.

People have forgotten but Saddam did have WMD and a Nuclear weapons program. However this was long before the the Iraq war and it was destroyed by airstrikes.

The reason why Saddam lied about having WMD is becuase of the Iran-Iraq war which the US also fueled. So he needed to convince the Iranians he had weapons, as the Iranian had heavy losses in that war.

Kind of a shame about Saddam really.

If only he had never invaded Kuwait, he would be our dear friend and ally to this day, WMDs and rape rooms aside.

The great champion of freedom and democracy, Ronald Reagen, was a big fan of Saddam and had no problem with him using mustard gas on the kurds.

Things were already messed up before Saddam came on the scene.

The Baathist movement that gave rise to him, the centuries old sectarianism that causes the split between the Syrian and Iraqi factions, Nasserism, the meddling that gave rise Ayatollahs, the Sheiks symbiotic relationship with Wahhabi and the overly cosy relationship with the gulf states.

Since the Iraq war inability to form a stable state due to tribal sectarianism and existential conflict mentality.

Saddam wasn't really out out of place in this environment.

If there was no Iraq War, the scenario I envision is that Saddam would have been overthrown during the Arab Spring. He had the same pan-Arab national socialism (like Nasserism, as 0_equals_true mentioned) ideology that Mubarak, Gadhafi, the Assads, et al, embraced. Whether it would have been a quick revolution, or a Syria-style bloodbath, we'll obviously never know.

Probably something like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

I notice that pretty much all of the countries where there was a successful overthrow of leadership were Sunni countries. Iraq has the issue of a split population - 65% Shiite, 32% Sunni, and the Sunnis would have fought tooth and nail to keep the Baathists in; ultimately you would have had, if not ISIS per say, the likelihood of something just like it and prior to that a lot more sectarian blood-letting than what happened with the US invasion.

As far as whether the world would be in better or worse shape if we'd not gone into Iraq - I wouldn't pretend to know. It was interesting to see just how many both middle-eastern and European countries had their intelligence reports corroborating with ours and suggesting that the UN resolutions were being blown. It might take us another 20 or 30 years to think rationally about this one based on the partisan politics that surrounded it.

More stable.

It was a mistake to go in. It was a bigger mistake to pull out without finishing the job.