alternatehistory.com

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.
Top