Saddam Hussein is overthrown in 1991

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
You think that the Iraqi Army is still going to get disbanded in this scenario?
What was the Iraqi Army?

At its most senior levels, it was a Ba'athist organization controlled largely by an officer corps of members of Arab Sunni tribes allied to Saddam and his govt. It did not promote by merit but by loyalty and patronage to Saddam, his tribe (Al-Bu Nasir). There were an occasional Christian, Kurd, or other senior officer, and some Shi'a junior officers, but not many. Most of the enlisted were Shi'a Arabs, most forced into service through conscription. They were not treated well, suffered pretty over-the-top

So in a post-Saddam Iraq, with the Ba'ath party out of power, with rising influence of Shi'a majority populace, how would the pre-existing Iraqi Army survive?

If Saddam's govt falls, whomever replaces it can't the officer corps as they were in league with Saddam, they'll fight tooth and nail to keep their power, using their military influence, access to weaponry, etc., to do it. And they can't keep the enlisted, because they will have mostly deserted. So they'd be stuck with a mostly empty organization that they'd still have to pay for, salary and pensions for all the Sunni Arab tribal officers*.

*Most of those ended up founding ISIS, or joining it down the road, so you can see how that would have worked, if still supporting them.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
It grew out of 911 and the neocon screwballs who thought they knew more than Saddam about how to govern Iraq. The idea was to democratize Iraq so democracy would spread throughout the region supposedly making Arabs less radical and Israel safer. Never was US policy so delusional.
Using tyranny to oppress the majority populace isn't knowing how to govern. If you believe that, how many other minority govts who used violence to keep the majority in check, solely to reap the rewards of power, do you also agree with?

Did Apartheid South Africa know how to govern their country in a way that no outsider understood? Was Saddam's treatment of the majority Shi'a Arabs indicative of how they needed to be treated? Likewise, was the Shi'a minority govt of Syria, which oppressed the hell out of the Sunni Arab majority, the only way in which Sunni Arabs could be kept in line?

How about just not oppressing the crap out of the majority populations? Oh wait, if you do that, then you can't become a billionaire with massive Swiss bank accounts.
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,135
Connecticut
Do you have a source for this or are you simply making an educated guess?
I very much doubt the Shia thought they could take the whole country. I assume they thought the battering of Saddam’s army gave them a good chance of throwing off his rule, locally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,135
Connecticut
Using tyranny to oppress the majority populace isn't knowing how to govern. If you believe that, how many other minority govts who used violence to keep the majority in check, solely to reap the rewards of power, do you also agree with?

Did Apartheid South Africa know how to govern their country in a way that no outsider understood? Was Saddam's treatment of the majority Shi'a Arabs indicative of how they needed to be treated? Likewise, was the Shi'a minority govt of Syria, which oppressed the hell out of the Sunni Arab majority, the only way in which Sunni Arabs could be kept in line?
.
My point was that it was foolish to invade Iraq in ‘03. If foreigners don’t like their governments changing them is their responsibility not ours. Iraq would’ve better off and so would the US had shrub just stayed out.
 
Last edited:

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
My point was that it was foolish to invade Iraq in ‘03. If foreigners don’t like their governments changing them is their responsibility not ours. Iraq would’ve better off and so would the US had shrub just stayed out.
How would Iraq, a country dominated by Saddam's allies, the minority Sunni Arabs (who he still had under his thumb) been better off when the majority populace of the Shi'a Arabs (who he mercilessly oppressed) and the Kurds (who he mercilessly oppressed) lived terrible lives under a brutal dictator?

Or in your mind, the only Iraqis that matter Sunni Arab tribes allied to Saddam? Because those are the only individuals who had it remotely good in Iraq before Saddam and his govt were deposed in 2003.

The chaos of modern Iraq isn't the result of an invasion, its the result of a long period of major sectarian unrest in Iraq, most of it the result of violence done by Saddam during his long reign that was never addressed. You remember the massacre of the Shi'a in 1991-2? You remember the destruction of the marshes? The gassing of the Kurds? The warehouses of political prisoners being tortured and executed, amounting to hundreds of thousands in a population only of about 25 million? Probably not. But the Iraqis remembered, and most of them were very very very angry about it, had a score to settle. While the various sides actually got together decently for some time before Saddam came into power, that changed. I'd concede in a heartbeat that independent religious revivals of the Shi'a and the Sunnis starting heavily in the late 70s would have fundamentally changed Iraq anyway, but Saddam did a TERRIBLE job as the dictator of Iraq in even remotely attempting to govern properly. Which makes sense, since for Saddam it was about power, respect, and money, not about trying to make the peoples' lives better. He actually preferred oppression and violence over anything else. It was his MO, which is understandable when you consider his background: Thug and criminal and murderer, political muscle under his uncle, Ba'ath Party assassin, head of internal security and intelligence (Iraq version of Stasi), then usurping his uncle to take full control. A worse person couldn't have been selected to lead a nation. He achieved it simply because he was more violent than the others, not because he knew how to properly govern Arabs, which is the chauvanistic and lazy response too often given out.

And yes, nation states do have a responsibility and do get a say in changing foreign govts. Its called war.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
I very much doubt the Shia thought they could take the whole country. I assume they thought the battering of Saddam’s army gave them a good chance of throwing off his rule, locally.
You mean the Iraqi Army that was mostly Shi'a Arab enlisted?

No, you mean the Republican Guard, which was only picked Sunni Arabs from loyal tribes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
I very much doubt the Shia thought they could take the whole country. I assume they thought the battering of Saddam’s army gave them a good chance of throwing off his rule, locally.
Wouldn't there always be a risk of an Iraqi reconquest of the south if Saddam will be allowed to remain in power in a part of Iraq, though?

Also, as a side note, if **** will still hit the fan in Syria at some future point in time, might Saddam be interested in expanding to the west? After all, Syrian manpower could perhaps some in handy for an eventual Iraqi reconquest of southern Iraq.
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,135
Connecticut
Wouldn't there always be a risk of an Iraqi reconquest of the south if Saddam will be allowed to remain in power in a part of Iraq, though?
The shiites could turn to Iran and Saddam still faced sanctions making it tough to rebuild his army.

Also, as a side note, if **** will still hit the fan in Syria at some future point in time, might Saddam be interested in expanding to the west? After all, Syrian manpower could perhaps some in handy for an eventual Iraqi reconquest of southern Iraq.
If he can't even retake the south I doubt he could take Syria. It is possible that Syria's majority sunnis would see him as a liberator from their shiite alawite rulers. So it might be tempting and doable, under certain circumstances. But he'd probably prioritize taking the south.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,135
Connecticut
How would Iraq, a country dominated by Saddam's allies, the minority Sunni Arabs (who he still had under his thumb) been better off when the majority populace of the Shi'a Arabs (who he mercilessly oppressed) and the Kurds (who he mercilessly oppressed) lived terrible lives under a brutal dictator?
They weren't "mercilessly oppressed" unless they rebelled.

The chaos of modern Iraq isn't the result of an invasion, its the result of a long period of major sectarian unrest in Iraq, most of it the result of violence done by Saddam during his long reign that was never addressed. You remember the massacre of the Shi'a in 1991-2? You remember the destruction of the marshes? The gassing of the Kurds? The warehouses of political prisoners being tortured and executed, amounting to hundreds of thousands in a population only of about 25 million? Probably not.
Of course I remember that. The crux of the problem wasn't Saddam but Sykes-Picot. Because borders established by colonial powers didn't follow ethnic borders, national cohesion was a big issue from the start. See Pollack, there were wars to suppress Kurd rebellions in the '60s long before Saddam. It's a grave fallacy to think American values and government are applicable everywhere; indeed there was more widespread realization of this after Iraq became heaven on Earth after 2003:)…..In Iraq the alternatives were either a "brutal dictator" willing to keep the country together by force or national disintegration.

And yes, nation states do have a responsibility and do get a say in changing foreign govts. Its called war.
In 1991 the US wisely limited the mission to retaking Kuwait.