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

As for #4, why would this have prevented the war?
If the Saddam Hussein regime is taking steps to actively aid the fight against Al-Qaeda and similar groups, then the case for deposition is considerably weaker and co-option a la Qadhafi is possible.

I'm not sure why you think the failure of the UN resolution to pass would still result in the invasion.
 
Last edited:

CaliGuy

Banned
If the Saddam Hussein regime is taking steps to actively aid the fight against Al-Qaeda and similar groups, then the case for deposition is considerably weaker and co-option a la Qadhafi is possible.

There would still be the WMD and nuclear weapons issues, though.

I'm not sure why you think the failure of the UN resolution to pass would still result in the invasion.

Because it will simply make the U.S. determined to go it alone. Indeed, such a move would only cause the Bush Administration to portray the U.N. as spineless wimps.
 
I think we can ask him, @jmc247 what are your thought on the question posed in the title?

It's entirely depends on if the UN keeps up sanctions and more importantly if the US and U.K. continue the No Fly Zone and at times No Drive Zones.

If they do when another Shia uprising occurs his troops will bog down meaning central Iraq a genocide zone. Likely parts of Northern Iraq as well as the Peshmerga try for land. We are talking millions dead and the country destroyed and Iran and the Sunni jihadists would end up with what was left.

Now if the US and UK ends the inspections and NFZ and sanctions then Saddam even demented would have the uprisings put down again with hundreds of thousands ending up in mass graves again. The regime from Chemical Ali on down even on autopilot knew how to put down rebels as long as they weren't being helped by Western air power.

However in the longer term if Uday or his brother would have been capable of filling his shoes in a religiously radicalized cauldron which Iraq was slowly becoming I don't know. In protecting the regime with the faith movement he created something that put religious extremism above himself and his family that was going to bite them on the ass hard eventually.
 
Last edited:

CaliGuy

Banned
It's entirely depends on if the UN keeps up sanctions and more importantly if the US and U.K. continue the No Fly Zone and at times No Drive Zones.

If they do when another Shia uprising occurs his troops will bog down meaning central Iraq a genocide zone. Likely parts of Northern Iraq as well as the Peshmerga try for land. We are talking millions dead and the country destroyed and Iran and the Sunni jihadists would end up with what was left.

Wouldn't that level of mass slaughter have caused the U.S. to intervene, though?

Now if the US and UK ends the inspections and NFZ and sanctions then Saddam even demented would have the uprisings put down again with hundreds of thousands ending up in mass graves again. The regime from Chemical Ali on down even on autopilot knew how to put down rebels as long as they weren't being helped by Western air power.

Would the Iraqi Shiites have even rebelled again if large-scale Iranian and/or U.S. support was not forthcoming, though?

Also, what happens to the Iraqi Kurds in this scenario?

However in the longer term if Uday or his brother would have been capable of filling his shoes in a religiously radicalized cauldron which Iraq was slowly becoming I don't know. In protecting the regime with the faith movement he created something that put religious extremism above himself and his family that was going to bite them on the ass hard eventually.

So, you're thinking of an Islamist takeover of all of Iraq?

Also, if so, wouldn't that trigger Iranian and/or U.S. military intervention in Iraq?
 
Wouldn't that level of mass slaughter have caused the U.S. to intervene, though?

The US in a weak Saddam scenerio as in NFZ and sanctions still on would be intervening Libya style, but the Iraqi RG and Sunni militias aren't Gaddafi's army and the Shia would be too disorganized to take the country so things bog down likely in the center.

Would the Iraqi Shiites have even rebelled again if large-scale Iranian and/or U.S. support was not forthcoming, though?

Also, what happens to the Iraqi Kurds in this scenario?

In time in a weak Saddam scenario yes they act, in a strong Saddam with access to world markets and no American bombers flying over head its less likely. The Peshmerga would take what they can get if central Iraq fails to civil war so there would be battles in the North.

So, you're thinking of an Islamist takeover of all of Iraq?

Also, if so, wouldn't that trigger Iranian and/or U.S. military intervention in Iraq?

More an Iraq that becomes a warlord state in the middle of endless war like 2014 Syria was close to becoming until and unless the world powers directly intervene. We saw shades of that in 2006 in Iraq, but the end result was held back by the US and reversed over the next year.
 
Last edited:

CaliGuy

Banned
The US in a weak Saddam scenerio as in NFZ and sanctions still on would be intervening Libya style, but the Iraqi RG and Sunni militias aren't Gaddafi's army and the Shia would be too disorganized to take the country so things bog down likely in the center.

Couldn't the U.S. send ground troops into Iraq in such a scenario, though?

In time in a weak Saddam scenario yes they act, in a strong Saddam with access to world markets and no American bombers flying over head its less likely. The Peshmerga would take what they can get if central Iraq fails to civil war so there would be battles in the North.

OK; understood.

More an Iraq that becomes a warlord state in the middle of endless war like 2014 Syria was close to becoming until and unless the world powers directly intervene. We saw shades of that in 2006 in Iraq, but the end result was held back by the US.

Having Iraq become a warlord state would be a major incentive for some Western Power(s) to militarily intervene in Iraq, no?
 
Couldn't the U.S. send ground troops into Iraq in such a scenario, though?

They could, but Americans hate the notion of humanitarian war. What does the press and public think of humanitarian interventions that turn into war fighting even on a tiny scale version as in nothing like Iraq... well look at Somalia.

This isn't Obama sending in some advisers back in bases in Iraq to help reform divisions and logistics, it would be a major commitment. It might happen when the national security rational becomes clear to the US public, but how long that is I can't say as it depends on events.

The jihadists would take advantage, but how well they do depends how weak the Ba'ath leadership is and if the jihadists have a chrismatic leader like Zarqawi who can marry a great many religious native Iraqi Sunnis to the foreign jihadists.
 
I seem to recall the sanctions regime was wearing off-the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese all wanted to do business with Iraq. Eventually commercial considerations would have prevailed-Saddam would have used this to rebuild his armed forces and WMD programs. He was patient and resolutely ambitious-if the window to invade or carry out a bay of goats sort of operation ended then Saddam would have had at least another decade to recover.
 
There would still be the WMD and nuclear weapons issues, though.



Because it will simply make the U.S. determined to go it alone. Indeed, such a move would only cause the Bush Administration to portray the U.N. as spineless wimps.
Getting even symbolic UN support was integral to selling the war at home.
 
Getting even symbolic UN support was integral to selling the war at home.

Bush tried mainly for Tony who was both convinced he could get UNSC support and thought it was important for his domestic politics.

By asking and not getting it let's just say it had the inverse long term effect they were hoping for of the push greatly lowering global support and even lowering support some in the US and UK.
 
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.

I cant see the two sons agreeing to share power..........
 
Seeing as Saddam Hussein would quite possibly die before the Arab Spring began I think its a matter of his succesors.

With Iran on the border of Iraq funding Shia Rebel groups it is quite possible Iraq would break up.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
They could, but Americans hate the notion of humanitarian war. What does the press and public think of humanitarian interventions that turn into war fighting even on a tiny scale version as in nothing like Iraq... well look at Somalia.

This isn't Obama sending in some advisers back in bases in Iraq to help reform divisions and logistics, it would be a major commitment. It might happen when the national security rational becomes clear to the US public, but how long that is I can't say as it depends on events.

The jihadists would take advantage, but how well they do depends how weak the Ba'ath leadership is and if the jihadists have a chrismatic leader like Zarqawi who can marry a great many religious native Iraqi Sunnis to the foreign jihadists.
I agree that it would probably be difficult to sell a large-scale U.S. troop commitment in Iraq to the American public purely for humanitarian reasons; however, wouldn't Saddam Hussein's alleged WMDs and alleged nuclear weapons program have tipped the edge in favor of a large-scale U.S. military intervention in Iraq among the American people?
 
Top