Saddam Hussein dies sometime between 1992 and 2000

Yeah, I guess those multi-sided civil wars in the Phillipines and Spain really showed the way, uh? :rolleyes:

Unlikely. Iraq was a unitary state organized along bureaucratic lines with an extremely mixed secular urbanized population. The largest Shia city? Baghdad. The largest Sunni city? Baghdad again. The largest Kurdish city? Baghdad one more time.

The truth is, the United States had to work good and hard to create the conditions of the low level civil war that Iraq has now. In a post Saddam environment of stalemate, two things we probably wouldn't see would be the rise of extremist Islamism among the Sunnis, and campaigns of ethnic cleansing by the Shia.

A multi-sided civil war is very unlikely. At best, you might see some jockeying between armed factions, maybe a coup attempt, but that's about it.

The Kurds of course are a different story, unless there's some arrangement with them, we're likely to see yet another Kurdish uprising in the post-Saddam era.

Geez, you know, I have to say you guys are such a bunch of nervous nellies. Democracy wins in the end. That's the lesson of the last couple of hundred years.

The Sunni and the Shia in Iraq hate each other. For good reason. A Shia rebellion in the south of Iraq was brutally surpressed in late 1991. Remove Hussein and his government, and there will certainly be another, more successful one.

And we haven't even got to the topic of foreign interference yet. Even if the Americans stay out, Iraq's neighbours won't.

Iran will back the large Shia minority. They won't really care how the Shia run themselves, so long as they are an "Islamic Republic" that is friendly towards Iran.

Turkey might stomp on the Kurds. They would only be reluctant due to the Kurds being very friendly with the US. But if the Turkish Kurds keep up with the terrorism, then Turkey might just invade and hope that the US will forgive them afterwards.

If the Amercians do intervene, it will be to ensure that Iraq's next leader, (or the leaders of the new state that form form the ashes of Iraq) is friendly to the interests of the US. They won't care if he is a democratically elected president or a bloodthirsty strongman, so long as he brings stability to the nation and lets the US do business there.
 
The Sunni and the Shia in Iraq hate each other. For good reason. A Shia rebellion in the south of Iraq was brutally surpressed in late 1991. Remove Hussein and his government, and there will certainly be another, more successful one.

On the other hand, the Shia and Sunni seemed able to live together. Most of the districts in Baghdad prior to recent ethnic cleansing were mixed, large areas of the country were mixed to some extent. Mixed marriages were common. Only relatively limited areas of the country were religiously 'pure' to the extent of being over 90% one or the other. Don't believe me, there are maps which show the prior religious distribution.

The Sunni were essentially secular - Islamists had no significant traction with them, they were either secular bureaucratic or traditional tribal, and as I've noted, fairly urbanized.

On the other hand, the Shia, were definitely the social underclass. But individual Shia were able to rise and be influential with the urban society of Iraq. Because their underclass was disenfranchised, the religious leadership was much more influential. But that leadership was hardly rabidly militant. Odds are they'd push for a better deal - they had the numbers to put in the streets and a reasonable amount of economic clout, but they're not going to push for a civil war, they didn't have the firepower.

Again, I'd note that the United States had to bungle things up massively and for years on end in every possible way to get things as close to a civil war as Iraq is now.

And we haven't even got to the topic of foreign interference yet. Even if the Americans stay out, Iraq's neighbours won't.

Iran will back the large Shia minority. They won't really care how the Shia run themselves, so long as they are an "Islamic Republic" that is friendly towards Iran.

Yeah, because Iran is overthrowing governments all over the Persian Gulf. :rolleyes:

Iran would definitely seek closer ties to Iraq. Saddam Hussein being dead would be a major step in and of itself. But the Iraqi Shiites and religious leadership were Arab nationalists. The Iranians are Persian. So there's always been that little bit of friction. It's not like the Iraqi' Shia would start taking marching orders from Qom.

Turkey might stomp on the Kurds. They would only be reluctant due to the Kurds being very friendly with the US. But if the Turkish Kurds keep up with the terrorism, then Turkey might just invade and hope that the US will forgive them afterwards.

Well, Turkey wouldn't be happy with a Kurdish uprising or an unacceptable degree of Kurdish autonomy. But that would probably translate into supporting the new Iraqi government to keep the Kurdish issue managed.

Again, the current situation that we have, with respect to the Turks bombing and conducting raids into Kurdish territories, and the Kurds supporting terrorism in Turkey is principally a factor of American bungling.

The Kurdish situation is the most problematic in the post-Saddam era. But that's always been the case with Iraq's history. I think between 1922 and 1991 the Kurds launched six major revolts.

If the Amercians do intervene, it will be to ensure that Iraq's next leader, (or the leaders of the new state that form form the ashes of Iraq) is friendly to the interests of the US. They won't care if he is a democratically elected president or a bloodthirsty strongman, so long as he brings stability to the nation and lets the US do business there.

So you're arguing that the greatest obstacle to an Iraqi democratic movement would be the United States?

That's pretty cynical, dude.
 
Again, I'd note that the United States had to bungle things up massively and for years on end in every possible way to get things as close to a civil war as Iraq is now.

And who says the post-Saddam authoritarians aren't going to screw everything up on an even more massive scale?
 
Correct. It's human nature to screw things up. Just look at the career of George W. Bush :D.

But having said that, the point I keep repeating is that Saddam leaves a vaccuum. None of the would be authoritarians really have the position to sink the boat.

Take the Shiite Ayatollahs. I'm sure that they'd like a Shiite Theocracy. But there are too many Sunnis and too many Kurds on the other side, and not enough soldiers and guns on their side. So they'll push, but not so hard as to set the whole thing aflame.

We can't know, really, what would happen. But I think a good case can be made for Democracy breaking out, given the last 25 years or so.

Civil war is a theatrical possiblity, but given Iraq's history and structure, probably not a likely one.

A new bloodthirsty strongman, Saddam II is a possibility.

I just think that Democracy is the most likely possible outcome.
 
I just think that Democracy is the most likely possible outcome.

Did the Cuban regime collapse when Castro, F, shuffled off the political stage, if not yet this mortal coil? Did the Syrian regime collapse when Assad senior died? Did North Korea enter into turmoil when Kim Il-Sung died? Will, for that matter, even the Mubarak regime fall when its founder goes? Not likely.

The historical record shows that the collapse of regimes when a ‘strong man’ passes is quite clearly, emphatically, not a given. It depends very much on a combination of factors - the political ability of the successor, how well the elite hangs together when the moment comes, the perculiar circumstances operating in the specific country, etc etc. And we are talking about a region of the world in which dynastic, personalised rule, either royal or otherwise, is still very much the norm.

This question very much depends on when Saddam goes, and in what circumstances. As the 90s progressed Qusay gained more power, influence and status, as Uday’s diminished. By the end of the decade Qusay was emphatically the successor to Saddam and had his hand in all the relevant pies of the regime - the republican guard, internal security and so on. I can’t see his succession being particularly contentious within the regime.

Qusay was bad, but not mad, and as ruthless and savvy as his father. Uday was mad, and bad. If Saddam snuffs it in, say, 1999, then the regime has IMO a much greater chance of continuing beyond his death than it would have at the beginning of the decade.

Democracy spontaneously flourishing in Iraq upon Saddam’s death is about as likely as it would be in any other ruthlessly authoritarian system upon the death of the incumbent despot. Which is to say, really not very.
 
Geez, you know, I have to say you guys are such a bunch of nervous nellies. Democracy wins in the end. That's the lesson of the last couple of hundred years.

I hate to say it, but not in Iraq's case. If Saddam dies, Iraq may die with him - it's organization as a unitary state does not change that. Democracy is not going to win out in the end in the case of Iraq. Maybe Qusay might try going somewhere that way (after poisoning Uday), but Iraq in the end would more likely turn out like the PRC or Singapore in the end.
 
Neither Uday or Qusay stuck me as being the kind to sit back and follow the orders of a now dead father if they were not the designated heir.
 
Sorry DValdron, but Iraq suddenly becoming a democracy shortly after saddam's death has the chances of sealion succeeding. If your hypothesis is correct, then why did the burmese junta not become a democracy following Ang Suu San kyi's election?

Why did North Korea or Vietnam not suddenly become democracies upon the strongman's death?
 
Keep in mind, gents, that the two brothers hated each other. Both ran elements of Iraq's security forces (with each branch having its own prisons), and had their own private armies. Pre-OIF, it was said that each brother wanted the other dead. (No one still has come forward to admit being behind the attempt on Uday's life in the late '90s) There was a news story about the brothers after their demise at the hands of the 101st Airborne: it was said that "Uday kills for fun, but when Qusay kills, it's business." The fact was that Qusay wasn't an impulse killer, and was being favored by his father to succeed him. Though Qusay did have his...issues. One of his favorite pastimes was feeding political prisoners to a wood chipper-Feet First. He also torched Uday's car collection once (a waste of fine sports and luxury cars). Most likely scenario if Saddam dies is that Qusay takes over (after liquidating his brother), but it doesn't take long for the Army and other Baathists to move against him. This time, a coup would work, and either a junta of generals or a charismatic general takes charge. Saddam's wife and daughters would be given safe passage out of the country-as is usual in such matters.
 
How did the competion between Uday and Qusay compare to the competion between brothers/potential heir designates in other regimes?
 
Calling the Hussein family dysfunctional was an understatement. Both brothers wanted the other dead (ironic since they died together...). It wouldn't surprise me if someone came forward and blamed Qusay for the attempted hit on his brother back in the late '90s. Then again, Uday had made so many enemies on his own, there was no shortage of suspects. The fact that Saddam was grooming Qusay to be his successor (government posts, his own armored division-the Special Republican Guard, and the SSO-Iraq's Special Security Organization) tells a lot. Uday had to settle for running Iraq's Olympic Committee and and the Saddam Fedayeen, along with running a lot of smuggling operations.
 
It all depends. If Uday comes to power, then nothing really changes. If we have multiple groups trying to take power, as was predicted after Hitler's death in a victorious Germany, then the Iraqi state is going to collapse. Without a stable government, the state cannot survive; there are too many desired governmental reforms that are unacceptable between the various groups and even within those groups. A single example alone would be the Kurds attempting to either attain autonomy or seperation. It is a minature version of Yugoslavia in the making.
 
Top