"I surrender" Saddam resigns - "Don't kill my people"

Okay Saddam would never actually think of leaving Baghdad under threats from Bush but supposing he did...

We still would have had to occupy Iraq to keep order and security for a year or so. On the flip side Bush crushes his Democrat opponent in a landslide a year later and the Republicans stay popular.

But chaos would still break out in Iraq and we get stuck in a quaqmire. Then Katrina hits and gas prices spike. Democrats would still win but not for a few more years...
 
Why the need for an occupation? If the old nutter resigns, so long as the new government is 'acceptable' (and I suspect it would be, for PR reasons if nothing else) I can't see why the US would still feel the need to occupy Iraq.
 
Why the need for an occupation? If the old nutter resigns, so long as the new government is 'acceptable' (and I suspect it would be, for PR reasons if nothing else) I can't see why the US would still feel the need to occupy Iraq.

Why to find all those WMD's that were laying around of course.
 
I think it would be necessary to ensure that the Baath Party is entirely removed from power in order to ensure that there is not just another dictator coming to power and continueing the same oppression. Some security force may have to detailed to Iraq in order to minumize sectarian violence.
 
To be cynical, as long as the new guy was acceptable to the USA (and hopefully didn't go round massacring his own people) a "New Baath" leader would be ok.

I also think that the new leader isn't going to want US troops, otheriwse he'll just look like a yank lackey. Nice peaceful transfer of power, support from the Iraqi civil authorities and military, no need for anyone to go in and mess the place up.

I think it would be necessary to ensure that the Baath Party is entirely removed from power in order to ensure that there is not just another dictator coming to power and continueing the same oppression. Some security force may have to detailed to Iraq in order to minumize sectarian violence.
 

ninebucks

Banned
I think it would be necessary to ensure that the Baath Party is entirely removed from power in order to ensure that there is not just another dictator coming to power and continueing the same oppression. Some security force may have to detailed to Iraq in order to minumize sectarian violence.

In 2003 no-one was talking about deposing Saddam just because he was a dictator, (some cited his treatment of the Kurds, but it would be possible for a new dictator to not be genocidal - there have been plenty of non-genocidal dictators); the problem was that he was a threat to national/global security.

Some other dictator would be perfectly acceptable, so long as he says nice things to the USA and allies. 'Mission accomplished!' will be the thought on everyone's mind, 'Saddam Hussein, the threat to national security, has been removed'. People won't care if the new guy is just as repressive towards the Shi'a, because, remember, this is 2003, no-one knows what a Shi'ite is. No coalition soldier has ever given his life to protect a Shi'ite.

The sectarian issues will still be there, but they'll remain under the surface, bubbling away. Without de-Baathification, we won't see the descent into anarchy and there will be no sectarian warfare.
 
In 2003 no-one was talking about deposing Saddam just because he was a dictator, (some cited his treatment of the Kurds, but it would be possible for a new dictator to not be genocidal - there have been plenty of non-genocidal dictators); the problem was that he was a threat to national/global security.

Some other dictator would be perfectly acceptable, so long as he says nice things to the USA and allies. 'Mission accomplished!' will be the thought on everyone's mind, 'Saddam Hussein, the threat to national security, has been removed'. People won't care if the new guy is just as repressive towards the Shi'a, because, remember, this is 2003, no-one knows what a Shi'ite is. No coalition soldier has ever given his life to protect a Shi'ite.

The sectarian issues will still be there, but they'll remain under the surface, bubbling away. Without de-Baathification, we won't see the descent into anarchy and there will be no sectarian warfare.


And Saddam and his sons get to live out their lives in comfortable exile. For some reason I see Paris.

Hell, lets face it, they would probably end up as celebrities in many circles.
 
And Saddam and his sons get to live out their lives in comfortable exile. For some reason I see Paris.

Hell, lets face it, they would probably end up as celebrities in many circles.

Not Paris. The french people would be furious about it.
Perhaps Moscow though...
 
Not Paris. The french people would be furious about it.
Perhaps Moscow though...


Money speaks more than morals. Paris or London comes easily to mind. Saddam could rub shoulders with all the other dictators already spending their ill-gotten loot there.....
 
Money speaks more than morals. Paris or London comes easily to mind. Saddam could rub shoulders with all the other dictators already spending their ill-gotten loot there.....

If he came to the EU he could be arrested, a la Pinochet. Then again, Mugabe was supposedly able to be arrested, but they conveniently forgot that when someone tried to make a citizen's arrest on him in Paris (?) and got punched by his heavies for their trouble.

I can't really see where he'd be welcome; they'd either hate him for his acts, his secularism, a threat he poses, or fear tainting their own nation with his presence. In the first world I doubt he'd be able to live without being prosecuted, even if let in only under humanitarian law.
 
If he came to the EU he could be arrested, a la Pinochet. Then again, Mugabe was supposedly able to be arrested, but they conveniently forgot that when someone tried to make a citizen's arrest on him in Paris (?) and got punched by his heavies for their trouble.

I can't really see where he'd be welcome; they'd either hate him for his acts, his secularism, a threat he poses, or fear tainting their own nation with his presence. In the first world I doubt he'd be able to live without being prosecuted, even if let in only under humanitarian law.

I am afraid you have a too optimistic view of humans (or politicians). If Saddam had wanted to come to Europe, he would be most welcome with his billions. He could buy an English soccer team and become a much valued addition to London's nouveau riche set. Let's face it, London is already filled with foreign criminals who fled jurisdiction after raping their own countries. Numerous Russians and that Thaksin fellow to name some. Thaksin even fled while under legal injunction during the Olympics and England gladly readmitted him. That should tell you something about the power of money.

And don't believe human rights organizations can make a difference. Western authorities have a long history of ignoring their protests and legal challenges when necessary. Even when policemen were waiting to arrest an Israeli butcher, he was tipped off by the Foreign Office and allowed to leave unscathed....And then there is Pinochet......too old and infirm to stand trial, right?
 
Forgive my ignorance, but the ultimatum delivered by Bush SURELY came with a clause that Sadam stand trial, yes? That's part of the reason why we're all so sure Sadam would have never acceded, isn't it?

And whatever the case, Western Europe would likely have him arrested. Pinochet was a product of the Cold War and thus unfortunately an ally to be swept under the rug rather than publicly brought to the stand. Sadam ended his days an enemy of the West, and the West would go after him. France is (if I'm not mistaken) sort of ground zero for Kurdish nationalism, so he wouldn't be safe there. And the Americans would insist on British cooperation in bringing him to trial if he landed there.

As we saw IOTL, the US government wanted the trial to be quick and didn't want to give him a chance to, for instance, write his memoirs. He probably could do a lot of damage to at least the public reputations of many people loyal to the Republican Party. The Bush administration would probably even be willing to make a deal with the UN; sign onto the International Criminal Court, if they agree to pursue a trial of Sadam.

The whole EU is out, and countries that want to expand into it. Moscow might work, but relations between Russia and the West were better then, so maybe not. Minsk perhaps? Outside of Europe, there's always Cuba (but you can never predict how Castro will react) or Venezuela (and Chavez is even less predictable.) Sub-Saharan Africa isn't safe. Some black ops team would get him within a month. And Central Asia would trade him in for favors in a heartbeat.
Any ideas in the Middle East or Northern Africa?
Maybe Myanmar? North Korea?
 
Top