Arab Spring in Saddam's Iraq

I don't know how much of the Arab spring can be linked to any OTL American involvement in Iraq or anything like that, so don't rip me to shreds if it does and what I posit is therefore ignorant.

My question is basically what would happen in an Iraq which the United States did not invade, but where the Arab spring was still moving across the Middle East?
 

Ah, but that thread was back in February.

Today I'd say Saddam would be using a mixture of throwing carrots to the protesters, brute force using an elite army unit, and whipping up sectarian hatred, which is what Assad is trying now. Except that we'd probably be seeing Hama-style massacres in Shiite southern Iraq, which leads to tensions with Iran. Because of geography and religion there could be an Iranian-backed proxy war which plagues southern Iraq for years to come even if the uprising is crushed.
 
They tried that when Saddam was at his weakest after the 1991 Gulf War after GHW Bush told them to rise up and we would help them. We didn't and southern Iraq became a killing field as great or greater then the one Saddam ordered against the Kurds in the 80s.

Saddam within a few years of the Gulf War had his Republic of fear back up in running with a state apparatus of terror every-bit as brutally effective as the ones Stalin or Hitler set up.
 
Ah, but that thread was back in February.

Today I'd say Saddam would be using a mixture of throwing carrots to the protesters, brute force using an elite army unit, and whipping up sectarian hatred, which is what Assad is trying now. Except that we'd probably be seeing Hama-style massacres in Shiite southern Iraq, which leads to tensions with Iran. Because of geography and religion there could be an Iranian-backed proxy war which plagues southern Iraq for years to come even if the uprising is crushed.

I think you have a complete misunderstanding of Saddam's character. If you think what is going on in Syria or Libya is bad you should look up what happened in Saddam's Iraq for decades.

To the OP; as covered in John Fredrick Parker's thread, Saddam and his regime brings down its boot-heel even more brutally than usually and kills everyone involved in the protests, their families, their families families, and just for safety and 'the lulz' their neighbors as well.
 
Last edited:
That was Saddam's MO: kill everyone involved (after frightful torture to find out others involved), kill or imprison family members, and do the same to friends or acquaitances of those involved. See how the 1991 uprisings were crushed to see what would happen in this case.
 
I suspect it would be similar to what's going on in Syria right now.

One key thing to remember, though - the UN had No-Fly Zones in place in southern and northern Iraq. That would have prevented Saddam from making aerial attacks, and it's not implausible that the U.S. and the UK would start using targeted missile attacks to impede his army. Had that happened, southern Iraq could quickly have fallen out of Saddam's hands and the regime may well have collapsed.

OTOH, this might butterfly out the Libya intervention, as the U.S. and the UK would be terribly stretched to then launch a second military campaign. Maybe it be even more French-led.
 
Most likely a repeat 1991, especially Karbala.

I can see a Syria-type situation happening as well, providing tribal and sectarian divisions are somehow kept in check to allow an organized opposition...


Just my 2 cents, not a history buff.
 
I don't know how much of the Arab spring can be linked to any OTL American involvement in Iraq or anything like that, so don't rip me to shreds if it does and what I posit is therefore ignorant.

My question is basically what would happen in an Iraq which the United States did not invade, but where the Arab spring was still moving across the Middle East?

Simple - the blood flows until even Iran starts to complain about the colour of the Shatt-al-Arab.
 
I just don't see an Arab Spring happening in Iraq, had Saddam stayed in power. Mubarak and Gaddafi didn't immediately turn to violent reprisals. They tried to break it up and whatnot. Not Saddam. He more than likely would have used bloody reprisals against demonstrators at the onset. He had gotten quite experienced at this sort of thing.

And if we didn't do anything to Iraq after Afghanistan, I certainly doubt we'd do anything other than more sanctions against Saddam if he had done this. Because "he had weapons of mass destruction". :p
 
I agree with those saying Saddam would be ruthless, and swift, in cracking down. Saddam was not a dictator in the Mubarak mould, he was a dictator in the Assad Snr. mould.

SlideAway offers a fascinating prospect though: of the existing no-fly zones being extended, and a Libya-style operation being mounted. Certainly, with no Iraq War the willingness to intervene would not be anywhere near as lessened as it is now, and any US President would be eager and willing to take out a historical enemy such as Saddam.
 
Correct: just look at how the 1991 uprisings were crushed: indiscriminate tank and artillery fire into Shia neighborhoods, dragging prisoners behind tanks, anyone found in arms against the regime summarily shot (if lucky-if not, tortured, and then shot), reprisals against family members, things like that. Saddam and his sons (who each ran a branch of the security forces) would have no problems crushing unarmed protesters beneath tank treads.
 
Ah, but that thread was back in February.

Today I'd say Saddam would be using a mixture of throwing carrots to the protesters, brute force using an elite army unit, and whipping up sectarian hatred, which is what Assad is trying now. Except that we'd probably be seeing Hama-style massacres in Shiite southern Iraq, which leads to tensions with Iran. Because of geography and religion there could be an Iranian-backed proxy war which plagues southern Iraq for years to come even if the uprising is crushed.

Carrots? Saddam made Gadaffi and Assad jr. seem nice to their people.
 
Top