The Current Situation in Iraq and Syria Without the Iraq War

Withdrawing from Iraq in December 2011 didn't help things, now did it?
I agree, I've always found the sudden American withdrawal from Iraq just as the country was starting to function and recover from that disastrous war, as completely irresponsible. Never understood how most of the people that opposed the war on Iraq so vigorously were also pushing for American troops to leave the country ASAP afterwards.

I was always of the position that if you make a mess, you need clean it up. Obama had the chance to transform the disastrous Iraq War legacy into a success story, instead he caved in to a kneejerk populist reaction. Now it can truly be said that the Iraq War was in vain.
 
As for the thread topic, an immediate consequence I imagine would be that Khaddaffi's chemical weapons program would continue, as he was the only dictator who got scared off in 2004 into handing over his WMDs due to the Iraq War.

This has important ramifications. I don't think the Arab Spring would happen in the same way, but I could easily see a similar movement taking place, the cause of the Arab Spring was the sudden rise of food prices starting in 2002 (all Arab countries are major food importers), this means unrest is going to happen no matter what, as China's increased appetite leads to higher commodity prices, the 2008 commodity price bubble and another massive spike in 2010-11 (effectively triggering the Arab Spring). In this case I have no doubt Libya, Syria and Iraq would still be powderkegs waiting to explode, perhaps with less Islamist presence, and certainly no ISIS, but it would be very bloody regardless on who is on the other side.

In the case of Libya we may see massive use of chemical weapons to supress the rebellions that toppled Khaddaffi in OTL, though NATO intervention would also be assured, and more swift than in OTL.
 
Last edited:
I agree, I've always found the sudden American withdrawal from Iraq just as the country was starting to function and recover from that disastrous war, as completely irresponsible. Never understood how most of the people that opposed the war on Iraq so vigorously were also pushing for American troops to leave the country ASAP afterwards.

I was always of the position that if you make a mess, you need clean it up. Obama had the chance to transform the disastrous Iraq War legacy into a success story, instead he caved in to a kneejerk populist reaction. Now it can truly be said that the Iraq War was in vain.

Its the same reason Congress didn't want us to bomb the North Vietnamese conventional invasion of South Vietnam in 1974. Its an interesting mental state that develops in most people who become anti X war because they can't seperate their opinion on going to war itself from what they should do now. You can and I can seperate the two things, but a lot of people... one can argue most people simply can't do it.

But, the end wasn't like 1974, instead we put in more advisers and started bombing eventually and now have nearly ten thousand coalition troops there and the country looks a lot like it did in late 2007 when AQI held onto Western Mosul and parts of Anbar and the country thought the war was lost between Shia militias and radical Sunni jihadists.

Yes, the public thought the war was lost until suddenly they released AQI was gone (well it was hiding in the deserts of Eastern Syria and Western Iraq) and suddenly a few months into 2008 the Iraqi Army is depending upon the Shia militias ruling parts of Baghdad and Sadr City for the most part on their own with only a handful of American advisers.

I would argue Obama made a very different choice in 2014 then the US political class in 1974 and because of that I give Iraq pretty good odds going forward, especially if Trump let's Mattis and Tillerson develop Iraq policy not Bannon. The big unknown is how hard Trump pushes for conflict with Iran and if he pushes the Iraqi political system hard on the venture.
 
Last edited:

CaliGuy

Banned
He sat on his ass with the support of Iran and the US and managed to get the courts to redefine what it means to have the biggest bloc therein getting the first choice at forming the government by negotiating the biggest combined electoral bloc.

In the end that same redefinition was used against him in 2014 by Abadi to take the PM chair from under him with him in 2014 arguing the Allawi 2010 position that his most seats means he gets to form the government.

I don't personally have a high regard for a list parliamentary system for emerging democracies, especially in states divided on religious and sectarian lines.
Did the Sunnis support Abadi in 2014?

Also, though, didn't the Iraqi courts essentially use the same rule in 2010 and later that Israel has used since 2003? Basically, the person with the largest coalition gets to have the first shot/chance at forming a government.
 
Of course they would not. The only reason the former Baathist worked together with Jihadists now is because they were kicked out of power and had two mutual enemies: the US and the Shia. Remove the 2003 war and the Baathist will view the Jihadists the same way they viewed the Shia: potential threat to their power and thus enemies.

Of course Neocons like JMC are eagerly pushing the false narrative that Iraq (and as a result Syria) was becoming a radicalized hellhole anyway. This makes for a convenient excuse: "sure the aftermath of our invasion was a disaster for Iraq, but that was going to happen anyway so in hindsight we didn't really mess up at all." Key point to remember here is that until the events post 2003 Iraq may have been a brutal dictatorship, but it was for all intends and purposes a non religious dictatorship. Nowadays Iraq is a series of ethnic and religion based dictatorships. This is very very awkward for the Neocons now "radical Islam" is once again the enemy. Blame needs to be shifted urgently.

If you look at the situation you will see that Saddam and the Baathist were claiming to be pious Muslims but that was PR only. They were in fact only interested in one thing: staying in power. Anyone who believes that a psycho like Saddam could actually be a true Muslim is deluded. Islam means "submission", does Saddam seem like the kind of person who would let anyone, even a god, stand above him?? He was good at faking sincerity maybe, but that is what psychopaths do: wear whatever mask is needed to get what they want.

That's false. Saddam did aid and cooperate with extremist Sunni groups like Ansar al-Islam before the invasion when it was in their perceived interest to do so. Those ex-Ba'athist officers who joined the resistance in 2003 and are now the core of the ISIS leadership wouldn't have passed muster in Zarqawi's organization if they weren't true believers. The fact that so many high-ranking officers in the regime proved to be so interchangeable with al-Qaeda is suggestive.

Your last paragraph is just No True Scotsman. Bin Laden ISIS have done many things that conflict with Islam but are still radical Sunni terrorists who base their entire appeal on religion and are effective in doing so. There's no reason to believe Saddam couldn't have done the same.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
As for the thread topic, an immediate consequence I imagine would be that Khaddaffi's chemical weapons program would continue, as he was the only dictator who got scared off in 2004 into handing over his WMDs due to the Iraq War.

Actually, based on what I read, Gaddafi's shift came at least in part as a result of domestic economic considerations; indeed, he already began to shift even before 2003--for instance, he gave up the Lockerbie suspect(s) to up on trial back in 1999!

This has important ramifications. I don't think the Arab Spring would happen in the same way, but I could easily see a similar movement taking place, the cause of the Arab Spring was the sudden rise of food prices starting in 2002 (all Arab countries are major food importers), this means unrest is going to happen no matter what, as China's increased appetite leads to higher commodity prices, the 2008 commodity price bubble and another massive spike in 2010-11 (effectively triggering the Arab Spring). In this case I have no doubt Libya, Syria and Iraq would still be powderkegs waiting to explode, perhaps with less Islamist presence, and certainly no ISIS, but it would be very bloody regardless on who is on the other side.

Completely agreed.

In the case of Libya we may see massive use of chemical weapons to supress the rebellions that toppled Khaddaffi in OTL, though NATO intervention would also be assured, and more swift than in OTL.

Frankly, if Gaddafi doesn't give up his nuclear weapons program in 2003, it's not impossible for him to successfully develop nuclear weapons by 2011.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Its the same reason Congress didn't want us to bomb the North Vietnamese conventional invasion of South Vietnam in 1974. Its an interesting mental state that develops in most people who become anti X war because they can't seperate their opinion on going to war itself from what they should do now. You can and I can seperate the two things, but a lot of people... one can argue most people simply can't do it.

But, the end wasn't like 1974, instead we put in more advisers and started bombing eventually and now have nearly ten thousand coalition troops there and the country looks a lot like it did in late 2007 when AQI held onto Western Mosul and parts of Anbar and the country thought the war was lost between Shia militias and radical Sunni jihadists.

Yes, the public thought the war was lost until suddenly they released AQI was gone (well it was hiding in the deserts of Eastern Syria and Western Iraq) and suddenly a few months into 2008 the Iraqi Army is depending upon the Shia militias ruling parts of Baghdad and Sadr City for the most part on their own with only a handful of American advisers.

I would argue Obama made a very different choice in 2014 then the US political class in 1974 and because of that I give Iraq pretty good odds going forward, especially if Trump let's Mattis and Tillerson develop Iraq policy not Bannon. The big unknown is how hard Trump pushes for conflict with Iran and if he pushes the Iraqi political system hard on the venture.
Question--wouldn't Iraq remain neutral in a U.S.-Iran war/conflict?
 
Question--wouldn't Iraq remain neutral in a U.S.-Iran war/conflict?

That depends entirely on how such a future event develops and proceeds which is something at this point unknowable. Iraq isn't going to take a bullet for Iran unless forced to, but at the same time Trump seems bound and determined to lump Iraq and Iran into one package so it's an impossible to answer current/future events question.
 
I agree, I've always found the sudden American withdrawal from Iraq just as the country was starting to function and recover from that disastrous war, as completely irresponsible. Never understood how most of the people that opposed the war on Iraq so vigorously were also pushing for American troops to leave the country ASAP afterwards.

I think the issue is that most of the anti-war folks (or the pro-war folks, for that matter) didn't know enough military history. Like, for example, the real history of Afghanistan and Vietnam. (Even now I get the twitches when someone says rot like "Afghanistan can't be conquered". The Persians managed it. The Mongols managed it. The British managed it. And the Soviets did too - at the same time as they ran out of money and lost everything at once.)

So psychologically, the two groups set themselves up to fail the war. The anti-war side (when not attacking the war on moral grounds) often looked at the history they knew and said "there's nothing we can actually do to make this better, best get out" and the pro-war side was usually aiming for completely unrealistic goals (even the Soviet anti-partisan efforts in the Ukraine after WW2 took over 10 years, and the Ukrainian partisans had no external support at all, unlike the Iraqi partisans - realistically, it was always going to take 20 years to say "mission accomplished").

fasquardon
 
How would the current situation in Iraq and Syria have looked like without a 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq (either because Bush changes his mind in regards to this or, perhaps more likely, because Gore wins the U.S. Presidency in 2000)?

Anyway, any thoughts on this?

The Islamic State would be less likely to arise because there wouldn't be as much as instability as there is in OTL Iraq. Iraq is composed of several ethnic groups and Saddam kept Iraq in balance through his brutal form of ruling. In the case Iraq isn't invaded, animosity against Hussein would probably decrease naturally over the years (though Bush would probably still curse him in his sleep. Saddam would probably be viewed on the same grounds of Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi, brutal but not as bad as Hitler or Stalin. Speaking of al-Assad, it's likely that Syria and Iraq would seek stronger ties after 2003. Both were ruled by the Baathist Party and both were under the scrutiny of America, though Hussein was suffering the worst of it. Iraq and Syria would still not join into one single state but would probably become strong allies in the late 2000s. Libya COULD also seek strong relations with countries, but that's only pure speculation. So yah, there would be more stability in Iraq and Syria, at first. Stopping the Iraq War will not prevent the Arab Spring, which was felt in almost all Arab countries. Opposition to Saddam would probably launch a civil war against the government, like the Syrian rebels are doing with al-Assad. Russia would still use jets to aid the Syrian government (probably Iraq, too). The conflict in the Middle East would be the same with some significant differences. One, ISIS would likely have not be involved, or at least as much as OTL. Saddam Hussein wouldn't have allowed the Islamic State to arise and there's no question he would have used brute force to suppress them (similar to how he used chemical weapons against the Kurds in the 90s). Secondly, Iraq and Syria would probably be helping each other much more against the rebels, because al-Assad would easily find more value in an Iraq led by Saddam then an Iraq led by American-forced democracy. Sunnis and Shiites would probably be much less hostile to each other than OTL, but that's not completely certain. There would still be chaos in the Middle East but much less extreme than OTL.
 
Did the Sunnis support Abadi in 2014?

Allawi's block had fractured with the Turks backing Nujufi and a lot of Sunni blocs vying for influence with seperate smaller parties which wasn't good for them.

Also, though, didn't the Iraqi courts essentially use the same rule in 2010 and later that Israel has used since 2003? Basically, the person with the largest coalition gets to have the first shot/chance at forming a government.

If wasn't a coup, it was legal and political trickery that ended up with a democratic outcome, but one where he bent the rules of the game somewhat to do it which lead to disaffected Sunni voters.

Either way Allawi and Maliki should have had a coalition government in 2011 and at the last minute our new ambassador realized that, but the new government has been hammered out. The previous one Chris Hill's only interest in Baghdad was getting grass to grow on the embassy law so he could play field hockey.
 
Last edited:

gaijin

Banned
Regardless of whether or not Saddam Hussein was faking his faith, he appear to have taken things to a very serious level--for instance, imposing Islamic punishments for thieves and whatnot.

Saddam and the Ba'ath party relied on violence and oppression to stay in power. That was their source of legitimacy. The regime inflicted brute violence on its own inhabitants and neighboring countries for as long as it existed.

Towards the ending they claimed to commit violence because of "sharia", but that was once again pure PR. Just like in the 70's their violence was supposedly to "stop counter revolutionaries" and in the 80's to "punish shirkers and maintain discipline in the war against Iran". It was just window dressing. The goal of the violence was not religious in nature. The goal was, as always, to keep the regime in power. The behavior remained the same throughout but the excuses changed. That's the key point.
 

gaijin

Banned
From what I'm seeing, both @jmc247 and @gaijin are busy ignoring parts of one anothers' argument. JMC, do you deny that American intervention destabilized the area, contributing to or inflaming other factors present? Gaijin, do you deny that both the governments of Iraq and Syria were making shifts towards Islamism, whether in substance or in show?

See my reply to Caliguy, since it answers your question I think.

In my opinion any and all reverence to Islan by Saddam and te Baathist was just window dressing. Their behavior was consistently violent throughout their reign, just the excuses changed. We can of course believe then and think they found ever new reasons to commit violence they sincerely believed in. However, I see no reason to take their excuses serious when there is a much simpler and more logical solution: they were violent to maintain power. It's consistent and jives with their Modus Operandi.

Just look at what they did, not at what they claim.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
That depends entirely on how such a future event develops and proceeds which is something at this point unknowable. Iraq isn't going to take a bullet for Iran unless forced to, but at the same time Trump seems bound and determined to lump Iraq and Iran into one package so it's an impossible to answer current/future events question.
Isn't Trump's problem in Iraq with ISIS--not with the Iraqi government (who is fighting ISIS)?
 
See my reply to Caliguy, since it answers your question I think.

In my opinion any and all reverence to Islan by Saddam and te Baathist was just window dressing. Their behavior was consistently violent throughout their reign, just the excuses changed. We can of course believe then and think they found ever new reasons to commit violence they sincerely believed in. However, I see no reason to take their excuses serious when there is a much simpler and more logical solution: they were violent to maintain power. It's consistent and jives with their Modus Operandi.

Just look at what they did, not at what they claim.

However I think window dressing or not incurring religious extremism can and has resulted in severe negative results so I treat the question similar to the one about if Trump is really racist, the rise in bigotry happened and if a negative consequence and further considering Saddam's was the result of an internal uprising so I think blaming it on Western intervention like BoonNZ is flying into certain fallacies.
 

BooNZ

Banned
However I think window dressing or not incurring religious extremism can and has resulted in severe negative results so I treat the question similar to the one about if Trump is really racist, the rise in bigotry happened and if a negative consequence and further considering Saddam's was the result of an internal uprising so I think blaming it on Western intervention like BoonNZ is flying into certain fallacies.
Do your posts come with subtitles?
 

BooNZ

Banned
True however building Shia mosques with his face in a majority Sunni nation isn't exactly going to be encoring to the local population.
So you are pointing out the extent of religious tolerance that existed in a comparatively secular Syria...
 
Sadam Hussain wasn't imortal and he kept the line of sussesion purposely blurred. He'd probably be dead of natural (or unnatural)caused by now and his sons and underlings would be fighting it out to see who would rule. Think Game of Thrones with WMD and foreign support.
 
So you are pointing out the extent of religious tolerance that existed in a comparatively secular Syria...

So would you think having a Sunni mosque with the King of Saudi Arabia being a permanent portrait in a Shia country will be considered religious tolerance? And what do you think of Saddam;s back to faith program?

Do your posts come with subtitles?

It doesn't matter if they really believe what they are encouraging, the point is they are encouraging it.
 

BooNZ

Banned
So would you think having a Sunni mosque with the King of Saudi Arabia being a permanent portrait in a Shia country will be considered religious tolerance?
I think having Sunni mosques in a 'Shia country' demonstrates a degree of religious tolerance. I'm not familiar with nuances of personalities within the Islamic faith to offer an opinion on décor.

And what do you think of Saddam;s back to faith program?
Desperate and ill considered - like the Republican support of the Tea Party movement...

It doesn't matter if they really believe what they are encouraging, the point is they are encouraging it.
I really still have no idea what you are banging on about. Saddam may have been pure evil, but enlightened self interest meant he was incapable of inflicting anything like the scale of carnage inflicted by 'the good guys'.
 
Top