If Saddam Hussein stays in power, does an eventual break-up of Iraq become much more likely?

CaliGuy

Banned
If Saddam Hussein stays in power*, does an eventual break-up of Iraq become much more likely?

Basically, I am curious about this considering that a longer rule by Saddam Hussein would allow him to continue with his Faith Campaign as well as to continue oppressing Iraqi Shiites and Kurds. In addition to this, if the U.S. doesn't send ground troops to Iraq (even during the Arab Spring, if it still occurs in this TL), Saddam's Army would have more fighting power than it did in our TL--thus giving Saddam a chance to hold at least part of Iraq. (Assad was able to win the Syrian Civil War against rebels who didn't get too much U.S. support in our TL; indeed, I am not excluding the possibility that Saddam would likewise be able to at least prevent opponents of his regime from winning a total military victory during the Arab Spring if the U.S. doesn't get too involved.)

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this? Do you think that if Saddam Hussein stays in power--at least up to the 2010s but perhaps even longer than that--an eventual break-up of Iraq would have become much more likely?

*Having Al Gore win in 2000 might be a good way to accomplish this. In such a TL, removing Saddam will still be a long-term U.S. policy goal but won't be implemented as early as 2003.
 

Archibald

Banned
The Hussein family had a tight grip on Iraq. Saddam two sons were groomed to replace him. As for the Syrian example - the main difference is that the Iraqi army, even after GW1, remained big and strong enough to crush any "Iraq spring" in infancy. Saddam and sons didn't cared about how many deaths. I can't see Saddam's Iraq going the Syrian way.
 
Hmmm, didn't know about the Faith Campaign before. Quite interesting. I doubt it will go to the extreme were there is clericalism of some form. Probably a degree of Islamic law, while people keep their military uniforms on and Saddam keeps claiming himself heir of Nebuchadnezzar and Saladin.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The Hussein family had a tight grip on Iraq. Saddam two sons were groomed to replace him. As for the Syrian example - the main difference is that the Iraqi army, even after GW1, remained big and strong enough to crush any "Iraq spring" in infancy. Saddam and sons didn't cared about how many deaths. I can't see Saddam's Iraq going the Syrian way.

Please keep in mind that the U.S. might use even small-scale protests against Saddam as an excuse to intervene, though; indeed, it would really depend on who exactly the U.S. President is during this time. Also, please keep in mind that regime change in Iraq was a U.S. policy goal even before George W. Bush came to power.

Hmmm, didn't know about the Faith Campaign before. Quite interesting. I doubt it will go to the extreme were there is clericalism of some form. Probably a degree of Islamic law, while people keep their military uniforms on and Saddam keeps claiming himself heir of Nebuchadnezzar and Saladin.

A continued Faith Campaign could create additional Sunni-Shiite sectarian tensions in Iraq and thus a greater unwillingness on the part of Iraqi Arab Sunnis to live under Shiite rule, though.
 
We should consider that in the early 2000s China and Russia were talking about lifting the sanctions that had been in place for a decade now. If they want it, it'll likely happen or Moscow and Beijing will just ignore the sanctions. That oil is too lucrative to give up on. In return for business deals and extending Chinese and Russian influence into the Middle East I imagine that especially the Russians would help rebuild the Iraqi military. Russian and Chinese interests would be affected by Saddam being toppled, so I imagine they'd go a long way to ensure the regime is able to crush any "Iraqi Spring" if it isn't butterflied away. Their interests could give pause to any American plans to intervene. Having said that, how likely is an intervention? American forces stood by and did nothing as Saddam crushed the 1991 uprisings, leading to tens of thousands of casualties.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
We should consider that in the early 2000s China and Russia were talking about lifting the sanctions that had been in place for a decade now. If they want it, it'll likely happen or Moscow and Beijing will just ignore the sanctions.

Yes, the sanctions regime against Saddam was collapsing by 9/11; however, 9/11 might give it a shot in the arm.

That oil is too lucrative to give up on. In return for business deals and extending Chinese and Russian influence into the Middle East I imagine that especially the Russians would help rebuild the Iraqi military. Russian and Chinese interests would be affected by Saddam being toppled, so I imagine they'd go a long way to ensure the regime is able to crush any "Iraqi Spring" if it isn't butterflied away. Their interests could give pause to any American plans to intervene.

That's a valid point; however, Saddam was much more of a public enemy in U.S. eyes than Assad was.

Having said that, how likely is an intervention? American forces stood by and did nothing as Saddam crushed the 1991 uprisings, leading to tens of thousands of casualties.

To be honest, I think that some--if not many--Americans regretted the fact that the U.S. was too soft on Saddam Hussein in 1991; thus, even if China and Russia arm Iraq's military, I suspect that there would be large-scale pressure in the U.S. in favor of a military intervention in Iraq if the Arab Spring still occurs and spreads over to Iraq.
 
I think it can't be overstated just how brutal Saddam was and how well he crushed dissent.

In any Saddam survives scenario, assuming the Arab Spring isn't butterflied he will drown the uprising in blood-he'll use chemical weapons, live fire, having tanks run over demonstrators whatever it takes to crush the rebellion. He'll receive international condemnations and sanctions of course but if he hasn't been invaded he'll survive and hold the country together.
 
Yes, the sanctions regime against Saddam was collapsing by 9/11; however, 9/11 might give it a shot in the arm.



That's a valid point; however, Saddam was much more of a public enemy in U.S. eyes than Assad was.



To be honest, I think that some--if not many--Americans regretted the fact that the U.S. was too soft on Saddam Hussein in 1991; thus, even if China and Russia arm Iraq's military, I suspect that there would be large-scale pressure in the U.S. in favor of a military intervention in Iraq if the Arab Spring still occurs and spreads over to Iraq.

Even with 9/11 the sanctions regime was collapsing, so imagine the sanctions will be lifted by the mid 00s. As far as being a public enemy goes, that's true. I guess it comes down to whether or not Saddam can keep his head down and invade nobody and on whether the alternate US government is hawkish in foreign policy. If it is, then ignoring Russian and Chinese interests still isn't smart. That makes arming and supporting rebels a better idea than getting directly involved in the hornet's nest that would be an Iraqi Civil War with a still powerful government army.

I think it can't be overstated just how brutal Saddam was and how well he crushed dissent.

In any Saddam survives scenario, assuming the Arab Spring isn't butterflied he will drown the uprising in blood-he'll use chemical weapons, live fire, having tanks run over demonstrators whatever it takes to crush the rebellion. He'll receive international condemnations and sanctions of course but if he hasn't been invaded he'll survive and hold the country together.

If left unchecked, definitely. Assad is an innocent choir boy next to Saddam in terms of the amount of violence they're willing to use. Assuming the US don't intervene directly, there's still the question of how much American support for rebels will help. And there's the question of what Iran will do once tonnes of Shias start to die because of Saddam's brutality.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
If left unchecked, definitely. Assad is an innocent choir boy next to Saddam in terms of the amount of violence they're willing to use. Assuming the US don't intervene directly, there's still the question of how much American support for rebels will help. And there's the question of what Iran will do once tonnes of Shias start to die because of Saddam's brutality.
To be honest, I doubt that the U.S. would avoid intervening directly; after all, by this point in time, Saddam Hussein would have been a pain in the ass for the U.S. for two decades. Plus, there is also the issue that Iran might intervene--and thus expand its influence--if the U.S. won't intervene.
 
To be honest, I doubt that the U.S. would avoid intervening directly; after all, by this point in time, Saddam Hussein would have been a pain in the ass for the U.S. for two decades. Plus, there is also the issue that Iran might intervene--and thus expand its influence--if the U.S. won't intervene.

Iranian intervention would be a bitch. The Americans are stuck in a conundrum: Iran will try to extend its influence to Iraq when Saddam seems unstable. The only options are to prop up Saddam or occupy Iraq. Both options suck.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Even with 9/11 the sanctions regime was collapsing, so imagine the sanctions will be lifted by the mid 00s. As far as being a public enemy goes, that's true. I guess it comes down to whether or not Saddam can keep his head down and invade nobody and on whether the alternate US government is hawkish in foreign policy. If it is, then ignoring Russian and Chinese interests still isn't smart. That makes arming and supporting rebels a better idea than getting directly involved in the hornet's nest that would be an Iraqi Civil War with a still powerful government army.
Please keep in mind that 9/11 could give the Iraqi sanctions regime a shot in the arm, though.

Iranian intervention would be a bitch. The Americans are stuck in a conundrum: Iran will try to extend its influence to Iraq when Saddam seems unstable. The only options are to prop up Saddam or occupy Iraq. Both options suck.
Honestly, I suspect that the U.S. would choose to occupy Iraq in such a scenario.
 
Please keep in mind that 9/11 could give the Iraqi sanctions regime a shot in the arm, though.

It could slow the process down, surely.

Honestly, I suspect that the U.S. would choose to occupy Iraq in such a scenario.

Prompting Russia and China to switch their support to Iran. Either that, or they support Saddam as he goes underground leading a Sunni insurgency. Given that Republican Guard and other loyalist units will be significantly more powerful after several years of Sino-Russian support, I think they could launch an insurgency even worse than we saw IOTL after 2003.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
It could slow the process down, surely.

Completely agreed.

Prompting Russia and China to switch their support to Iran. Either that, or they support Saddam as he goes underground leading a Sunni insurgency. Given that Republican Guard and other loyalist units will be significantly more powerful after several years of Sino-Russian support, I think they could launch an insurgency even worse than we saw IOTL after 2003.

To be honest, I think that they would support Iran and the Iraqi rebels in order to secure influence over the oil-rich parts of Iraq. Indeed, the Sunni Arab-majority parts of Iraq don't have much oil.

As for the insurgency part, that is certainly very possible; now, the question is this--do the Iraqi rebels and the U.S. try finishing off this rump Sunni Arab state? Or do they decide to let this state go to Hell in a hand-basket and thus leave this state alone? (For what it's worth, I think that the Iraqi rebels would aim to capture this state in order to secure a link to Syria--where Iran's ally Assad needs all of the help that he can get.)
 
I don't know that Gore victory is the best or even the most realistic way of avoiding the Iraq War. That said, we probably get contemporary Syria on steroids. It may even spill over into Syria and Turkey.
 
What exactly do you propose?
The UN resolution fails, the Congressional authorization fails, or Saddam is more cooperative with inspections. Or Abu Musab al Zarqawi is apprehended by the Iraqi regime in mid to late 2002 and Iraq's cooperative esture sees the push towards war fizzle out.

If the U.S. doesn't militarily intervene, that is.
A U.S. intervention would be a colossal disaster.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The UN resolution fails, the Congressional authorization fails, or Saddam is more cooperative with inspections. Or Abu Musab al Zarqawi is apprehended by the Iraqi regime in mid to late 2002 and Iraq's cooperative esture sees the push towards war fizzle out.

#1 wouldn't have prevented the war. Similarly, I am unsure that #3 would have prevented the war. #2 would have prevented the war, though.

As for #4, why would this have prevented the war?

A U.S. intervention would be a colossal disaster.

Maybe, maybe not.
 
If Saddam Hussein stays in power*, does an eventual break-up of Iraq become much more likely?

Basically, I am curious about this considering that a longer rule by Saddam Hussein would allow him to continue with his Faith Campaign as well as to continue oppressing Iraqi Shiites and Kurds. In addition to this, if the U.S. doesn't send ground troops to Iraq (even during the Arab Spring, if it still occurs in this TL), Saddam's Army would have more fighting power than it did in our TL--thus giving Saddam a chance to hold at least part of Iraq. (Assad was able to win the Syrian Civil War against rebels who didn't get too much U.S. support in our TL; indeed, I am not excluding the possibility that Saddam would likewise be able to at least prevent opponents of his regime from winning a total military victory during the Arab Spring if the U.S. doesn't get too involved.)

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this? Do you think that if Saddam Hussein stays in power--at least up to the 2010s but perhaps even longer than that--an eventual break-up of Iraq would have become much more likely?

*Having Al Gore win in 2000 might be a good way to accomplish this. In such a TL, removing Saddam will still be a long-term U.S. policy goal but won't be implemented as early as 2003.
Saddam had bad relations with all of his neighbours, had to maintain extensive religious and ethnic repression to keep his regime afloat, was under sanctions, had been severely weakened by the First Gulf War, had an economy in tatters, and his army was wearing plastic helmets while relying on down graded last-generation export model Soviet tanks for armoured support. Should he remain in power it would not be testament to his own ability, but to the incompetence of his enemies.
 
Top