Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Saddam Hussein was the enemy of one America's major enemies. Thus, he should have been America's "friend," Kuwait should have been swept under the rug, the Kurds were protected by a no-fly zone and Saddam should have given a little wet bunny kiss of forgiveness and put on an American leash to bark at the Iranians for as long as it pleased America.
His destruction was the work of a major jackass, and demonstrated clearly that the U.S. was an incompetent enemy despite having major fire power.
The problem with that is that this "friend" proved to be a snake in the grass dating back from 1990. You assume Saddam would have stayed on his leash....
Even if you do believe he would have, I can easily see an aging decrepit old leftist like Saddam suffering the fate of Quadaffy--namely, that young islamist militants would want him overthrown, and try to do so once they sensed any weakness.
The problem with that is that this "friend" proved to be a snake in the grass dating back from 1990. You assume Saddam would have stayed on his leash....
Even if you do believe he would have, I can easily see an aging decrepit old leftist like Saddam suffering the fate of Quadaffy--namely, that young islamist militants would want him overthrown, and try to do so once they sensed any weakness.
I say he would have survived. Saddam was pretty proactive on eliminating his competition, even compared to his fellow strongmen:
Kaddaffi - seemed to have mellowed from his crazy days in the 80's and 90s. He was getting old and slipping. The Kaddaffi from 20 years ago wouldn't have let the arab spring get to first base in his country.
Mubarik - Yeah he has no problem "getting medieval" on his enemies, but his focus was also on making the west happy, getting tourism dollars and US aid, he had the US breathing down his shoulder on occasion regarding human rights, etc. He could not work with absolute disregard like Saddam could.
No, Saddam is a street fighter, a street criminal, even a whif of a problem from someone he would have taken them off the streets and he would have a pair of pliers on the guy. He survived wars, assassination attempts, insurrections, etc.
The *absence* of US support caused those governments in Egypt and Yemen to fall.....
Pretty much, weather that was a good or bad decision has yet to be seen. Yemen looks like it will be another lawless region like Somalia and Afhiganistan. Egypt, after some trouble, seems OK...at the moment...still not fully stable however. Remember their was an "arab spring" in Iran as well several years ago. That got quased in the usual violent way.
Out of curiosity--if the U.S. would not have overthrown Saddam Hussein in the early 21st century (such as if Gore rather than Bush would have won in 2000), would Saddam Hussein have survived the Arab Spring?
Any thoughts on this?
The US attempted to stage an internal rebellion in Iraq in 2002.
CIA and US military special forces were inside Iraq six months before Bush went to Congress for the authorization to use military force. They approached the Iraqi military and leaders of the Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish communities. They refused as they remembered what happened in 1995 when the US tried to stage an uprising to take out Saddam.
Out of curiosity--if the U.S. would not have overthrown Saddam Hussein in the early 21st century (such as if Gore rather than Bush would have won in 2000), would Saddam Hussein have survived the Arab Spring?
Any thoughts on this?
Evil coward hid like a trapped rat. Monday morning quarterbackings for football.
Yes, you can certainly argue that. However, is this argument actually convincing?
I don't know if an argument that has yet to be made would be convincing or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevxu
Saddam Hussein was the enemy of one America's major enemies. Thus, he should have been America's "friend," Kuwait should have been swept under the rug, the Kurds were protected by a no-fly zone and Saddam should have given a little wet bunny kiss of forgiveness and put on an American leash to bark at the Iranians for as long as it pleased America.
Your argument. at least for me, is just too disjointed to understand what it has to do with the idea that Hussein's demise may have played a role in the development of the Arab Spring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
This momentarily occurred to me as well, but then I soon dismissed that idea.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 didn't introduce the concept of democracy to the Middle East. Arabs were well aware of representative democracy long, long before that. Does anyone really think the Tunisian street vendor who immolated himself was somehow inspired by the replacement of a Baathist regime with a succession of corrupt and inept Shiite regimes in Baghdad? The mere existences of vibrant democracies in Europe, North America, and elsewhere seem a far more plausible inspiration. Also, the timeline shows the Arab spring not beginning until 2011, after many years of horrific post-invasion civil war and sectarian atrocities in Iraq - who wants to emulate that?
What could be argued is that one of the results of the Arab Spring - the power-vacuum into which ISIS has moved - would have been significantly smaller had not the regime in Baghdad that exerted firm and draconian control over its territory been replaced by an inept one unable to do so. On the other hand, with Saddam Hussein still in Iraq in 2011, Iran - the country that has by far benefited the most from Hussein's toppling - would have been strategically weaker and in less of a position to provide as much aid to the Assad regime, and so it is conceivable that Assad might not have lasted to this point.
So, that's my guess - no toppling of Saddam Hussein means no ISIS in Iraq but Assad no longer in power. I'll leave it to others to detail how the situation in Syria would thus have played out.
Generally speaking that is the gist of the argument in opposition of Kanan Makiya who made the original argument in the New York Times.
The US attempted to stage an internal rebellion in Iraq in 2002.
CIA and US military special forces were inside Iraq six months before Bush went to Congress for the authorization to use military force. They approached the Iraqi military and leaders of the Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish communities. They refused as they remembered what happened in 1995 when the US tried to stage an uprising to take out Saddam.
The problem with that is that this "friend" proved to be a snake in the grass dating back from 1990. You assume Saddam would have stayed on his leash....
Had Saddam been explicitly warned by the U.S. in 1990 that the U.S. will militarily intervene if Saddam invaded Kuwait, though, then I am unsure that Saddam would have actually had the nerve to invade Kuwait. After all, didn't Saddam invade Kuwait in 1990 in real life in large part due to his belief that he could successfully get away with doing this?
Quote:
Even if you do believe he would have, I can easily see an aging decrepit old leftist like Saddam suffering the fate of Quadaffy--namely, that young islamist militants would want him overthrown, and try to do so once they sensed any weakness.
Gaddafi was only overthrown with the help of NATO, though. Plus, as far as I know, Gaddafi purposely kept his military weak in order to reduce the odds of a successful coup occurring against him; of course, doing this might have ironically accelerated his own demise during the Arab Spring as well.
Also, though, it is worth noting that Iraq is several times more populous than Libya is and thus a NATO bombing campaign against Saddam during the Arab Spring might have been less successful than it was against Gaddafi. Plus, I suspect that Saddam's massive brutality in 1991 would have discouraged most Iraqi Shiites from rebelling against Saddam during the Arab Spring in this scenario. Indeed, the Iraqi Shiites were even hesitant to rebel against Saddam Hussein in March and April 2003, and this was when 100,000+ U.S. troops were already located in Iraq!
This momentarily occurred to me as well, but then I soon dismissed that idea.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 didn't introduce the concept of democracy to the Middle East. Arabs were well aware of representative democracy long, long before that. Does anyone really think the Tunisian street vendor who immolated himself was somehow inspired by the replacement of a Baathist regime with a succession of corrupt and inept Shiite regimes in Baghdad? The mere existences of vibrant democracies in Europe, North America, and elsewhere seem a far more plausible inspiration. Also, the timeline shows the Arab spring not beginning until 2011, after many years of horrific post-invasion civil war and sectarian atrocities in Iraq - who wants to emulate that?
What could be argued is that one of the results of the Arab Spring - the power-vacuum into which ISIS has moved - would have been significantly smaller had not the regime in Baghdad that exerted firm and draconian control over its territory been replaced by an inept one unable to do so. On the other hand, with Saddam Hussein still in Iraq in 2011, Iran - the country that has by far benefited the most from Hussein's toppling - would have been strategically weaker and in less of a position to provide as much aid to the Assad regime, and so it is conceivable that Assad might not have lasted to this point.
So, that's my guess - no toppling of Saddam Hussein means no ISIS in Iraq but Assad no longer in power. I'll leave it to others to detail how the situation in Syria would thus have played out.
Great post, Unsettomati! Frankly, I completely agree with everything that you wrote here!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Frankly, I completely agree with everything that you wrote here! 
