Is world better without Saddam?

[The Grand Nudger]

Before I respond, I want to point out that this is precisely what I commented upon posts ago.  What a convenient world for a despot, were the indirect threats he can leverage against his population are seen as valid and compelling to us.  "If you get rid of me, even more people will die". Oh, you're -absolutely right-...continue being a despot, with our blessing.

I think you'll find that real experts predicted such a wide range of future states as to cover any eventuality or outcome.  Cheerleaders and doomcriers, and everything in-between.  This is immaterial, as those same experts, when they predicted negative outcomes, also provided us with strategies and suggestions as to how to avoid those outcomes.  This is the very core of our failure in that conflict.  Not only did we start into it as a blunder, we continued to blunder. It was not impossible to remove Saddam without all of the rest of this happening. Saddam wasn't some cosmically necessary piece of the region upon which all outcomes depended. Our actions, now, have had a greater effect than Saddams. The man and his regime have been completely eclipsed in relevance. If we want to point to some reason that the middle east is what it is now, we should look to our own actions, rather than lay the collapse on the removal of a strongman.

[abaris]

Before I respond, I want to point out that this is precisely what I commented upon posts ago.  What a convenient world for a despot, were the indirect threats he can leverage against his population are seen as valid and compelling to us.  "If you get rid of me, even more people will die".  Oh, you're -absolutely right-...continue being a despot, with our blessing.  

In a perfect world, you would have a point. But as I said earlier, that's not how it works. If no political or economical interests are involved, dictators can do just that. In fact, if they lick Western boot, they are encouraged and praised by the West. Best example, Ruanda, where nobody gave half a shit about what was happening there, with over a million casualties. Another example, as far as praising is concerned, Saudi Arabia. Much worse than Iran, as far as civil liberties, democracy and women's rights go. But still, one of our bestest friends, as Forrest Gump would put it.

So, the only logical argument that follows is, if you are removing any given dictator, please, at least have a plan for the aftermath or at the very least, inform yourselves on the situation at hand. Don't make it worse. And that, inn the case of Saddam, has been predicted. By experts, as well as by me, right before the war started. I did so on fearbush.com, back in early 2003. It was that obvious, that it didn't even escape my notice, although I only had a fleeting knowledge of the region and it's problems. Turned out, I was right, but I certainly don't take credit for that, since everyone with half a brain and the will to inform themselves could only come to the same conclusion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here again...because some dictators get away with it, because the system is gameable, because the world is imperfect, because bad things...even worse things...are happening elsewhere...these are not, to my mind, reasons to allow any specific dictator to continue doing his thing.   

We did have a plan.  We had many plans.  Realize that we generated mountains and mountains of plans because there is an army of people who do nothing but produce them day in and day out (just as we have mountains of predictions, and an army of people making those).  Our failure had nothing to do with a lack of plans, or planning options. Our failure was not, as you point out, being unaware of the possible outcomes of our actions.

[abaris]

Here again...because some dictators get away with it, because the system is gameable, because the world is imperfect, because bad things...even worse things...are happening elsewhere...these are not, to my mind, reasons to allow any specific dictator to continue doing his thing.   

We did have a plan.  We had many plans.  Realize that we generated mountains and mountains of plans because there is an army of people who do nothing but generate them day in and day out.  Our failure had nothing to do with a lack of plans, or planning options.

First, the majority of dictators gets away with it. Because they don't rule over regions of interest or because they lick western boot.

Secondly, criminally ignorant plans, based on the abysmally wrong assumption that Iraq is even a country filled with people that want to live together. Based on abysmally wrong intelligence, speaking of WMDs, when every other western service came to different conclusions. And no plans for the aftermath, besides Bush's bullshit of the shining beacon of democracy. Which, since the people didn't want to live together in the first place, was rubbish right from the get go.

As I said. All of this has been pointed out before the first Abrams crossed the border. It was in the news on a daily basis, with commentaries of real experts on the region and it's difficulties.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not disputing that your predictions, and the predictions of others came true.  Entirely the opposite.  I'm not disputing that despots the world over "get away with it".  I don't subscribe to any of the party bullshit that was bandied around then, about the war, either.  

If you'll recall, the question was whether or not I think that the world is a better place without Saddam...I do.  The question was not whether I think the world is a better place -for- the failure of the american war effort, I don't. It could have been the one glimmering little spot of light in an otherwise sordid affair.  We got this instead though, because fuck us. Did Saddam need to go? Were we in a position to remove Saddam without all the attendant misconduct? Could we have made the decision and done the work to remove him, without also making all of the myriad other decisions and actions which led to the current situation in the middle east, and specifically Iraq? Yes, yes, and yes, imo.

Our incompetence cannot be reduced to one unforgivible mistake, such as entering the war, or removing Saddam, it is the effect of a stunning array of smaller, more mundane sequential failures. Failure stacked atop failure. A fucking shrine to failure around which our political machine gathered to worship and make offerings, lol.

[abaris]

If you'll recall, the question was whether or not I think that the world is a better place without Saddam...I do.  The question was not whether I think the world is a better place -for- the failure of the american war effort, I don't. It could have been the one glimmering little spot of light in an otherwise sordid affair.  We got this instead though, because fuck us.  Did Saddam need to go?  Were we in a position to remove Saddam without all the attendant misconduct?  Could we have made the decision and done the work to remove him, without also making all of the myriad other decisions and actions which led to the current situation in the middle east, and specifically Iraq?  Yes, yes, and yes, imo.

Seems we have to agree to disagree. Was Saddam a bad person? Of course. No debate over that. Is the world better off, as in us and the Iraquis themselves? My answer is no. Based on what I already said.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that you've fixated on Saddams importance to the exclusion of our own involvement in all of that.  We obviously didn't have to get rid of the army to get rid of Saddam, nor did we in actuality (as you mention..they just changed the patches on their shirts).  Even if we were required to do so we did not have to leave them stripped of an army, recall that we were supposed to cover them until they were trained?   Pointing to the military capability of Saddam, in this converstaion, borders on ludicrous. There was another, vastly more powerful military in the area. Ours.

You think that we didn't know what we were in?  How did all those experts (and yourself) make such good predictions, then?

We did know, we had actionable plans. The criminal bit is how we went forward, with that knowledge, in spite of those plans, and how we presented (and chose to pursue) a counterfactual narrative, and counterproductive actions. Counterproductive, of course, to a non-factual narrative. Had we been looking to improve the lives of Iraqis with regime change (which we weren't but should have been), then we could have. This is my position, this is why I;d call the world better without Saddam, even though I, like you..think that the region is worse off because of how we went about it.

[abaris]

I think that you've fixated on Saddams importance to the exclusion of our own involvement in all of that.  We obviously didn't have to get rid of the army to get rid of Saddam, nor did we in actuality (as you mention..they just changed the patches on their shirts).  Even if we were required to do so we did not have to leave them stripped of an army, recall that we were supposed to cover them until they were trained?  

You think that we didn't know what we were in?  How did all those experts (and yourself) make such good predictions, then?

What you fail to notice is, one error led to the other. There was one Iraqi crook, I can't remembber his name, at that time, the US were largely relying on. He was exposed, after the fact. But the damage was already done. Just the same as with the one and only WMD source, who first tried his luck with the German BND, and being found unreliablle by the Germans, offered himself up to the CIA.

It isn't a miracle that the predictions were right. I was watching European as well as American news coverage at that time. The Europeans foretold that there will ensue a conflict between Sunnis, not wanting to take the backseat, and the Shia majority. The American coverage did no such thing.

It's common sense, actually. And the most obvious part of it is Brehmer disbanding the Iraqui army. Probably not under his own steam, but he was the one issuing the order. So, claiming to know what you were in for, comes over as a little bit naive. It started with the little nuisances, such as securing the oil ministery, but failing to secure the museums, where countless irreplaceable artifacts were instantly looted. Probably to end up in soome private collection. And it ended with a slap to the face of countless people, suddenly losing their livelihood.

That's only scratching the surface, but it points to the fact of having no plan beyond toppling Saddam.