This may have been hinted at several times under other WIs like "WI no 9/11" or anything. But let's say we had Gore or McCain as POTUS when Bush 43 served his tenure IOTL. How would a surviving Ba'athist Iraq have been affected by the Arab Spring? Would it still come along and have the OTL ramification? Could there still be something like IS in Syria going on next to an Iraq still ruled by Saddam Hussein?
Today's Iraq without the Iraq War of 2003
- Thread starter Dr. No
- Start date
Saddam would have crushed any open dissent with total ruthlessness. Think the Shia revolt in '91.....one thing his secret police were good at was identifying enemies of the state (real or imagined) and liquidating them.
Realpolitik
Banned
I don't know, Saddam was getting pretty loopy... but if he falls, Qasay takes over, and is a little more sane, if no less brutal.
If the Arab Spring comes to Iraq, expect a Syria type situation to come about. To give up power unless very clearly faced with disaster is not in ANY of the Hussein's natures.
If the Arab Spring comes to Iraq, expect a Syria type situation to come about. To give up power unless very clearly faced with disaster is not in ANY of the Hussein's natures.
Qusay was more level-headed than his brother. The difference between the two? When Uday killed, it was for pleasure or on impulse. When Qusay killed, "It was business," to quote Don Vito Corolone.
I'm not sure that train can be deflected; mass protests and riots against corrupt Arab rulers have been a thing since before the Iraq War. The big differences that kicked off the Arab Spring were the combination of technology making mass, spontaneous organizing much easier, a regional crop shortfall, and in the case of Egypt cutting the food subsidies given out to all Egyptians as part of some austerity stuff. As long as you have the Crash of 2008 you'll be getting an Arab Spring.
Realpolitik
Banned
LHB is right. Iraq made the local region really really bad, and increased Iranian influence, and combined with the Arab Spring in Syria, made a lethal combination. But the Arab Spring was the whole Middle Eastern world, kicking off in North Africa, and what goes on in Egypt isn't so much influenced by Iraq. Maybe there was a peripheral role at being mad at US-supported rulers, but it's nowhere near the central role.
IS emerged, as Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), to occupy a power vacuum left by the invasion. Much of its support was derived from Sunnis disaffected with the Shia government, so keeping the Hussein clan in power might starve them of a key base of support (in actual fact, the initial IS incursions from Syria were assisted by neo-Baathist groups - it was more a pan-Sunni rebellion in the earliest stages than a jihadist land grab). This isn't ruling out some other group springing up in opposition to the secular (I use that term grudgingly) regime, but I don't see the conditions arising as easily for it to gain the momentum it did in 2014. Rebellions are far more likely to be originate among the Kurdish and Shia communities. Saddam may even see an opportunity in funding, or at least tacitly supporting, radicals in Syria - the Damascus and Baghdad governments were at loggerheads for years.
I'm not saying it had nothing to do with it, rather that the region is something of a tinderbox to begin with. Removing the Iraq War from the equation doesn't remove all the other contingent factors responsible in setting off the Arab Spring.
I think the Iraq War's impact, if it did help the Arab Spring at all, was more as an object lesson demonstrating how incredibly pointless and ineffective armed struggle is in achieving change in the region. What brought down Ben Ali and Mubarak was due to circumstances specific to Tunisia and Egypt more than being a factor of what the US was doing to Hussein.
Realpolitik
Banned
Totally right. The ideologues on the right are as stupid as the ones on the left promoting "cultural values" and waiting for the magical tolerance/cell phone brigade to bring democracy in spite of US greed. Strangely enough, the magical US military machine can't accomplish everything by marching in and imposing our will on 'dem nasty A-rabs, and this approach often brings HEAVY backlash.
(sarcastic) Frankly, to try to impose our will like that on Muslim nations in general at all is pointless and stupid. This isn't some backwater Central American caudillo region here. These people can fight, always have, and if they couldn't, technology, warfare, and media is getting different.
I don't object to killing foreigners or covert action if the Prezzie knows what he is doing(which today's "conservatives" and especially neocons a la Cheney and Rummy most clearly don't, meaning that if they try it's just worse), but I insist that something concrete be accomplished by it. Otherwise, it just makes more attacks and backlash against us likely. Getting people to hate you in the long term is very stupid(which is also why I'm insistent that we get more competent dictators if possible). Potential partners or investments, or even people NOT completely hating us, is a pretty worthwhile goal.
Last edited:
Orville_third
Banned
There were Al-Quaida-linked forces in Iraq before the war- they were just mostly concentrated around Gulp, in Kurdistan and led (from Norway) by Mullah Krekar.
And there is one change which no Iraq War would bring that could butterfly away a lot of the Arab Spring. No Iraq War means no deployment of PFC Bradley Manning to Iraq, which means no leaks of State Department cables, which deprives one source of information on the misdeeds of Tunisia's government.
And there is one change which no Iraq War would bring that could butterfly away a lot of the Arab Spring. No Iraq War means no deployment of PFC Bradley Manning to Iraq, which means no leaks of State Department cables, which deprives one source of information on the misdeeds of Tunisia's government.
Corned Beef Renegade
Banned
Watching a documentary years ago about the family I do remember thinking that Uday reminded me of Sonny Corleone, especially in one incident where he was shot at while driving his Mercedes.
I guess the question would be if there would also be a generational change in Iraq. If Qusay inherited the keys to Iraq, my personal feeling is that he would be similar to Bashar al-Assad. If Uday inherits... well North Korea - middle east style.
If someone other than Bush was President (Gore or whomever) I'm still not sure that some variation of the Iraq War would not have happened. It was generally accepted by both American political parties that Iraq had or was building WMDs, and even in the Clinton administration there was a stated belief that Saddam had to go. It's also possible that Saddam, if he perceived American or Western weakness, would have provoked military action.
And then there are those mysterious Russian convoys from Iraq to Syria in early 2003...
And then there are those mysterious Russian convoys from Iraq to Syria in early 2003...
Orville_third
Banned
I agree that the Democrats (at least, the ones with power) were in favor of going to war with Iraq. The bit about the belief in WMDs being accepted is true (as far as we know) as well... at least the "belief" part. It's worth noting that Saddam's son-in-law defected in 1995 and told us that they were destroyed. It's also worth noting that the Duelfer and Kay reports confirmed that Iraq's WMD program did not exist after 1995.
Realpolitik
Banned
Damn idealistic neocon overtones had WAY too much influence on both parties, more than I like to think about it.
I find it highly unlikely a Democrat would have kicked off a ground war in Iraq. While there may have been the want for him to be gone, plunging American into a second war while they are supposed to be fighting in Afghanistan would probably not be high on a President Gore 'to do' list. He'd probably continue sanctions and airstrikes against the Baathist regime.
At the very least he wouldn't have hawkish goons blatantly misinterpreting intelligence data to push him into a war.
I'd also like to believe that it would be marginally better planned if he did.
---
In respects to the OP I suspect that Saddam would kick the bucket eventually and Qusay would take over (probably killing his brother in the process). The regime would piddle on with its usual brutality.
However, Qusay is fairly unknown, still as brutal as his father (he managed the secret police very effectively from what we do know) but he may have had a more conciliatory stance with the West who may have been willing to deal with someone who isn't Saddam.
Either way a continued Iraq serves as a practical check on Iran's ambitions in the region.