Saddam and the Revolutions

However, what can be discerned is that, were Saddam Hussein still in power, other events during the past eight years might have prevented this protests from occurring or being anywhere near as widespread or effective as they have been.

...or, maybe, the other way round.
 
Holy shit... I had been planning a thread like this!

Now before we analyze the regime, let us analyze the demographics - Kurds and Arabs, Sunnis and Shiites. Iraq is a huge desert, unlike Syria, and consequently also has many Bedouin tribes and other tribal Arab populations. So, in a way it's a mix of Libya's current civil war and the Iraqi Civil War of 2006.

Saddam would probably exterminate people by the hundreds of thousands, if they even dare rise up. His hard line policies against the West would at the very least earn him respect from the Sunni Arab minority - as well as other minorities that he protected. He did exterminate minorities along with Kurds, but that was only after a rebellion. If they do not rebel, they're safe.

Now assuming he had till 2011 to reign over Iraq - I wonder if he'd have changed by then? Maybe somewhat more lenient? Perhaps aimed at a national reconciliation? After all, Iraq has enemies in America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Maybe a national unity policy would do him well.

I think Saddam's regime would remain as stable as Syria, Iran and Algeria presently are due to the military nature of the regime. However, even Libya with its small, homogeneous yet tribal population rose up. So I assume Iraqis, too, have a tipping point - particularly if activists from neighbouring Iran orchestrate it among the Shiite population, and the same is true for Kurds in Iran and Turkey.

At any rate, Saddam does not sound like a man who would escape to the outside - he'd probably die fighting a civil war, or be victorious yet suffer from a huge destruction that leaves him vulnerable to foreign assault.

I think it's too early to judge what would happen in Iraq under him, as we still need to see whether the current people power wave will be able to penetrate regimes like Algeria, Syria, Iran and even Saudi Arabia as of yet. So far it has penetrated Libya, and the force with which authorities responded does not seem mouthable at all. I need to wait and see how other regimes hold on.
 
Why is Iraq the inspiration…Why not Jordan or Lebanon? They had relatively democratic governments before 2003 as did Turkey and other nearby states. Whilst also having the advantage of not being totally screwed up by a foreign invasion & civil war.

Trying to retroactively justify the USA’s empire-destroying series of slapstick fuck-ups in Iraq by trying to tie them to recent events seems sad and desperate.
 
One more thing: without invasion of Iraq, how high would be the oil prices? If lower, then the transport costs would be lower as well. Including transport of foodstuffs. Aren't the current revolutions caused in large part by high food prices?
 
Explain:confused:

I guess it's possible that these protests might have happened sooner, but that seems unlikely

Well, you gave the explanation yourself. I just wanted to add that we cannot rule out that butterflying away the 3rd Gulf War might (not "would") have the effect of speeding up the current processes.

---

My general impression is that beyond the immediate social causes, the development of a new kind of media-society which has access to channels seen as reliable and which are quite accessable has helped to turn a local Tunisian event into a national issue, and from there to spread the revolutionary impetus to Egypt and beyond. I mean especially Al-Jazeera (spelling OK?) and certain internet platforms. I am no propagator of a "Facebook-revolution", but these medias have been less widespread just a few years ago.
Again, I think of this factor as rather Saddam-unrelated.
 
Well, you gave the explanation yourself. I just wanted to add that we cannot rule out that butterflying away the 3rd Gulf War might (not "would") have the effect of speeding up the current processes.

---

My general impression is that beyond the immediate social causes, the development of a new kind of media-society which has access to channels seen as reliable and which are quite accessable has helped to turn a local Tunisian event into a national issue, and from there to spread the revolutionary impetus to Egypt and beyond. I mean especially Al-Jazeera (spelling OK?) and certain internet platforms. I am no propagator of a "Facebook-revolution", but these medias have been less widespread just a few years ago.
Again, I think of this factor as rather Saddam-unrelated.

I think that social media has helped, but that was not enough for toppling the regime in Iran in 2010. What we are seeing in the Arab world is more complicated and the result of what are doutless a multitude of factors. THe current global recession, for example, has surely intensified an already precarious situatio. I say "already" because, if I'm not mistaken, rampant unemployment was already a problem in the Arab world in 2001.
 
One more thing: without invasion of Iraq, how high would be the oil prices? If lower, then the transport costs would be lower as well. Including transport of foodstuffs. Aren't the current revolutions caused in large part by high food prices?

The main effect on oil prices was in the immediate aftermath of the war. Afterwards, production mostly recovered, though bad governance, insurgencies and malinvestment kept it fairly flat. Overall oil production is probably lower than where it would be given a functioning government and proper infrastructure development, though not by a huge enough amount to make a significant difference in oil prices (though there will still be a difference.)

Perhaps more important will be the economic costs of the war for the US and the UK, and whether they might impact the development of the late 00's recession. Whilst you will still get the asset bubbles and commodity booms, and the recession was partly-driven by a financial meltdown, the extra economic activity available by a trillion not being spent on blowing things up might very well cause a delay in the recession, which when combined with the economic benefit of a non-damaged Iraq to the world, could perhaps delay the economic factors of these revolutions.

On the other hand, the reduced level of anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism, the reduced level of a perception of "cultural conflict" and the lack of a chaotic example discrediting democracy might push many of the political factors for reform earlier, particularly as, in the absence of the Iraq war sapping much of the U.S energy and foreign influence in the region, you might see a greater push for democratic reform by Bush. That may just cause earlier concessions, or more gradual, appeasing, changes.

Combined, these influences might prevent the convergence of all these political and economic factors, and might just make for a later, or for no revolutions. But that's not terribly likely, at the end of the day, you still have illiberal dictatorships and you still have restricted supply and rising Asian demand driving a massive commodity boom.
 
I think that social media has helped, but that was not enough for toppling the regime in Iran in 2010. What we are seeing in the Arab world is more complicated and the result of what are doutless a multitude of factors. THe current global recession, for example, has surely intensified an already precarious situatio. I say "already" because, if I'm not mistaken, rampant unemployment was already a problem in the Arab world in 2001.

I absolutely agree here that we deal with a multitude of factors contributing to the revolutionary situation in surprisingly many Arab nations. And, on the other hand, the media factor alone is simply not sufficient, though it probably helped even the Iran protest gaining momentum, but rather more international recognition.

I am not sure if the Global recession is a decisive factor here, because, as you said, insane numbers of unemployment are not a new thing in these countries. I'd rather point to the volatility of food prices in recent years, which, so to say, gives the new dimension of the threat of hunger to the already problematic social situation.

Another point we haven't mentioned yet, but which creates instability, is the high percentage of young people in these populations. But again, this has been the case for a few decades by now.
 
I absolutely agree here that we deal with a multitude of factors contributing to the revolutionary situation in surprisingly many Arab nations. And, on the other hand, the media factor alone is simply not sufficient, though it probably helped even the Iran protest gaining momentum, but rather more international recognition.

I am not sure if the Global recession is a decisive factor here, because, as you said, insane numbers of unemployment are not a new thing in these countries. I'd rather point to the volatility of food prices in recent years, which, so to say, gives the new dimension of the threat of hunger to the already problematic social situation.

Another point we haven't mentioned yet, but which creates instability, is the high percentage of young people in these populations. But again, this has been the case for a few decades by now.

I guess part of my thoughts here were that the unemployment situation, already precarious, has worsened enough to contribute to the mass discontent in the region.
 
I doubt Saddam would fall. Gaddaffi's willing to kill hundreds, even thousands to stay in power, but Saddam was willing to kill tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands to do so.
 
I doubt Saddam would fall. Gaddaffi's willing to kill hundreds, even thousands to stay in power, but Saddam was willing to kill tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands to do so.

With Libya being the case most comparable to a Saddam-Iraq, I think we should wait and see how things play out there in the coming days/weeks.

While Saddam has proven quite a readiness to shed the blood of his subjects, the situation in Iraq would on the other hand be even more difficult to rule over than in Libya. Less state revenue, a generally malfunctioning economy and additionally a country split in three clearly distinct camps (not just having to juggle different tribes like Ghaddafi has to) with the ruling faction by far not being the strongest.

One thing is for sure, it would have been very bloody.
 
Top