Is world better without Saddam?

[abaris]

Those things you've said didn't happen because we toppled Saddam.  He wasn't (and isn't) the causative agent in the regions current state.  I don't think we're disagreeing on much, if anything, other than this.  I think that the notion that Saddam was required is a convenient fiction for american involvement, a way to claim that the current instability of the region can be layed chiefly on it's people and their inability to coexist without a despot reigning them in, rather than our incompetence.

No, these things probably wouldn't have happened. Saddam was weak at that point, but still strong enough to crush any opposition internally. Second, he was a Baathist, a kind of socialist. Which doesn't say much, since he didn't act the part. But what it does say is, he was secular to a large extent. Third, the army and all it's privileges would have been in place. So, no career officers standing on the streets and flocking to the Sunni rebellionn or ultimately ISIL to train and lead them. Not because they loved them that much, but because of the shared common enemy that took away their livelihood.

And we're at it again. That's the worst of it. By wanting to remove Assad, who is Baathist too without really knowing nor caring what the opposition will be up to, once the void is created. Saddam and Assad have next to nothing in common. Saddam was Sunni and Assad is Shiite, but the one thing they have in common is the Baathist ideology and that they are or were secular leaders. Nobody can predict, which particular group would take over in Syria and what their agenda is about. Same as the Iraq desaster was followed by the Lybian one, just because we wanted to get rid of a certain dictator, not to our liking, without knowing or caring what was to replace him.

Which brings me back to the Clausewitz quote. You have to know what you're in for before going to war.