What if the 2003 American invasion of Iraq doesn't occur?

Jun 2018
210
New Hampshire
#41
What a Middle Eastern dictator does in the region, especially one as strategical valuable as the Middle East (Oil and LNG), then yes, the US has every right to get involved as its in our interests to get involved. US national security is dependent on Gulf States selling oil in US Dollars. When Saddam threatens those partners, militarily invades them, continues to mess with them, violates the cease fire agreement that ended the 1991 war numerous times, and tries to assassinate a former US president (GHWB), then yep, the US has every reason to respond, especially after repeated UN orders were ignored. Whether you can find Iraq on a map or not, or know anything at all about the country or not is of no concern.

FYI, I think GWB sold the war to the public like an idiot. I think he overly focused on things like the WMDs and AQ, where it was there, but not strong enough to have pushed it as hard as he did. I would have gone a totally different route, and used covert ops and airstrikes to do it all.

Also, I notice you ignored everything else I typed about Saddam's Faith Campaign and reasoning behind it. And I'm going to take a shot in the dark (lol) and say you it was because you don't have a clue what the Wahhabi or Salafist sects of Sunni Islam are. But I will also bet you'll tell me I'm wrong in a few hours after you hit up Wikipedia.



It was never more than 30,000 at one time. And that included thousands of foreign fighters. Out of a country with a population of 38 million.

Did it ever dawn on you that you don't know what you're talking about? At what point does lack of knowledge stop you from posting?
I know full well what I'm talking about bub, do you? At any rate, there are more than enough oil reserves in Alaska for the United States to become energy independent. Perhaps our politicians should stop pandering to the Green Peace, save the caribou crowd and carry out the will of the vast majority of Americans who would support energy independence and drilling in Alaska.

And need I remind you, that the United Nations itself was strongly opposed to Bush's war which, accordingly to your "logic," would have been in their interests to support. France, Germany, Russia, and China, all of which according to your logic would have benefited from overthrowing Saddam Hussein, were staunchly opposed to a military invasion. Why were they opposed you might ask? Because the war was nothing about defending the national security of the United States, and would not have contributed a dime towards the security of any nation on the UN Security Council. The war was about misguided utopian idealism of spreading democracy and human rights abroad. Not only is that an absurd reason to go to war, but it also failed to achieve its objective. There have been more killings, and more terrorist attacks in Iraq and the Middle East post invasion than their were in the previous 50 years before the American led invasion.

Sure Al Qaeda was a major threat that needed to be dealt with. But that was what the military campaign in Afghanistan was for. Extending the war on "terrorism" to a nation that not only hadn't attacked the United States, but couldn't even if it wanted to, was counterproductive in the extreme. And that is an understatement!

Face it bub, without the Iraq invasion their would be no Daesh, their would have been no Arab Spring (which resulted in the overthrow of autocratic but stable governments all across the region), and the Middle East would be a much safer part of the world than it is today, and would certainly be far less radicalized. If the world has anyone to thank for the unprecedented spread of radical Islam, they can thank Bush-Cheney and the neocon gang for an outstanding job well done!
 
Likes: starman

Iraq Bruin

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
4,947
DC
#42
I used to have a map of the foreign supported leftist cheered sunni insurgency vs. the anti Saddam insurgency.

I don’t know which machine of mine has it now.

I am glad I have the self control to limit my post in threads about this subject :)
 
Jun 2018
210
New Hampshire
#43
I used to have a map of the foreign supported leftist cheered sunni insurgency vs. the anti Saddam insurgency.

I don’t know which machine of mine has it now.

I am glad I have the self control to limit my post in threads about this subject :)
FYI, I'm not a leftist. I am almost certainly further to the right on the political spectrum than you. I am just not in favor of a counterproductive, neocon interventionist foreign policy.
 
Likes: starman

Iraq Bruin

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
4,947
DC
#44
I was not talking about you, I was talking about the insurgency and i have been describing them that way for 16 years come March 20th.

Right of me or left of me, I don’t share everything here. :)
 
Jul 2016
8,711
USA
#45
FYI, I'm not a leftist. I am almost certainly further to the right on the political spectrum than you. I am just not in favor of a counterproductive, neocon interventionist foreign policy.
Part of it was absolutely a neocon interventionalist policy, they'd been wanting to overthrow Saddam in particular for a while because they believed Iraq was the most ripe country in the Middle East where a brutal (but secular) dictator could be overthrown and replaced by a democratic country, whose leaders and people would welcome an American liberation of their country, and this new Iraq good trade relations with the US, and that all would spread throughout the Middle East to create a secularist culture and remove the fear of a destabilized/fractured/warring Middle East from future global threats. That obviously was full of major holes, the least bit is that Saddam's Iraq wasn't very secular anymore, the Shi'a of Iraq were taking orders from Iran, Saddam and his Ba'athist govt created part of the Sunni insurgency and helped fuel the rest, the Iraqi exiles they picked to run Iraq turned out to be major crooks and scumbags, and for many other reasons.

And yep, in hindsight the liberation was a mistake as it turned into a quagmire made worse by the early pullout of the US led coalition.

But even so there were many legitimate reasons to take out Saddam. Casus belli in the most basic being that the 1991 Cease Fire Agreement was invalidated by Saddam's violations of numerous tenets. And that he had his intelligence agents trying to assassinate George H.W. Bush 41, which lead to a major cruise missile attack by Bill Clinton, and was one of the major reasons George W Bush 43 was on board, he wanted vengeance. Clinton was a hair away from major military operations a few times but chickened out. Bush 43 saw himself as stronger, as not scared of the risk of war, politically or militarily, so gambled. And largely lost, at least politically (though the war was essentially won when he handed it to his successor).

Also in hindsight I think the invasion and occupation was not necessary. I'd just have killed him with an airstrike and let the cards land where they would.
 
Jul 2016
8,711
USA
#46
I know full well what I'm talking about bub, do you?

And need I remind you, that the United Nations itself was strongly opposed to Bush's war which, accordingly to your "logic," would have been in their interests to support. France, Germany, Russia, and China, all of which according to your logic would have benefited from overthrowing Saddam Hussein, were staunchly opposed to a military invasion. Why were they opposed you might ask? Because the war was nothing about defending the national security of the United States, and would not have contributed a dime towards the security of any nation on the UN Security Council. The war was about misguided utopian idealism of spreading democracy and human rights abroad. Not only is that an absurd reason to go to war, but it also failed to achieve its objective. There have been more killings, and more terrorist attacks in Iraq and the Middle East post invasion than their were in the previous 50 years before the American led invasion.

Sure Al Qaeda was a major threat that needed to be dealt with. But that was what the military campaign in Afghanistan was for. Extending the war on "terrorism" to a nation that not only hadn't attacked the United States, but couldn't even if it wanted to, was counterproductive in the extreme. And that is an understatement!

Face it bub, without the Iraq invasion their would be no Daesh, their would have been no Arab Spring (which resulted in the overthrow of autocratic but stable governments all across the region), and the Middle East would be a much safer part of the world than it is today, and would certainly be far less radicalized. If the world has anyone to thank for the unprecedented spread of radical Islam, they can thank Bush-Cheney and the neocon gang for an outstanding job well done!
Numerous senior generals, who went into hiding after Saddam was overthrown, who ran part of the Sunni insurgency after (1920 Revolutionary Brigade, and others) combined with Al Qaeda in Iraq and formed ISIS/ISIL/DAESH.

SADDAM'S BA'ATHIST GOVT CREATED DAESH

The connection has been proven a dozen times over. We know the people, we know who they worked for. Even the former senior operations officer for DAESH was a former Iraqi Air Force colonel that was senior in the intelligence branch.

The non-Ba'athist DAESH cadre were mostly graduates of guess where? Saddam University's Islamic Studies dept, which specialized in teaching Salafist dogma, with the full blessing of Saddam Hussein. He didn't care if they wanted to be Islamic terrorists, as long as they weren't trying to target him, which was the entire point of the Faith Campaign. Shift the targeting threat away from him, make them dependent on him, make his reputation seem better, at least to avoid the anger of the Salafists.

At any rate, there are more than enough oil reserves in Alaska for the United States to become energy independent. Perhaps our politicians should stop pandering to the Green Peace, save the caribou crowd and carry out the will of the vast majority of Americans who would support energy independence and drilling in Alaska.
That is not why Middle East oil is important. The ME, especially Gulf States, exports something like 85% of the world's oil. Since the early 70s, to go off the Gold Standard, and to back the US Dollar as more than just fiat Monopoly money, the US govt went into bed with first the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, then most other Gulf States to create the famous Petrodollar. They would sell their oil only in Dollars cash. Which meant anyone else wanting to buy needed to own US Dollars, which created a demand for them. Next, the Saudis and then others would take the profits from the sales and invest it into US Treasury Bonds, which are still the most dependable investment on the planet (at least for time being). In exchange, the US would guarantee their security, by selling them the good stuff in terms of weapons, and having a military alliance to prevent them from being invaded by a neighbor.

You think we liberated Kuwait out of the goodness of our heart? You think we want to be dealing with the Middle East for any other reason than our currency's value is utterly dependent on it? Go look into your wallet. Open your bank account info online. See all that money? You want it something? That is why the US is neck deep in the Middle East. That is why Saddam had to go. He's interfering with something more valuable than the Middle East, our currency, our economy, which is the lifeblood of our nation. It collapses, and its going to make the 30s Great Depression seem like a fun time.
 
Last edited:

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
32,538
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#47
Gentlemen, we are not discussing why the invasion happened or its justifications. The topic is about what would have happened if the invasion had NOT occurred. Let's stick to the speculatives.
 
Jun 2018
210
New Hampshire
#48
My apologies.

This is what the prevailing situation in the Middle East would most likely be if the Iraq invasion had not taken place.

Iraq would be governed by an authoritarian and yet stable government, that would serve as a counterweight to Iranian influence in the region. Iran, though perhaps still intent on developing nuclear weapons for defensive purposes, would be more cautious about engaging in bellicose rhetoric, not willing to provoke another war with a militarily powerful Baathist Iraq. The Middle East would be divided into three strategic factions. A Shi'ite faction led by Iran, which would include Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen: A Sunni faction led by Saudi Arabia which would include the UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, and the majority of the Gulf Arab states. Though Saddam Hussein was nominally a Sunni Moslem, and his government favored the Sunni minority, he and the Saudis were never on the most friendly terms since both Iraq and Saudi Arabia had designs on regional hegemony. With oil production on the top of both of their agendas, oil being the primary reason why Saddam's Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Baathist Iraq would likely remain a third, and independent power block without many allies of its own in the region. With Erdogan's Turkey, which does not get along with either Iran or Saudi Arabia, being a possible exception.

Overall, however, with the region containing major military powers governed by strong authoritarian rulers, Islamic terrorism would likely not be as prevalent as it is today. Excluding of course the Iranian and Iraqi funded guerilla operations against Israel.

Any one else have a different or similar take on this?