If Saddam Had Stayed

[BeAChooser]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...465721991599994.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion

I think it is a profound mistake to confine the war's significance to the borders of Iraq. Mr. Obama himself raised the central question about Iraq in that 2002 speech: Did Saddam Hussein pose a danger beyond his borders, or not?

"Let me be clear," State Senator Obama told the Federal Plaza crowd, "I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. . . . He has repeatedly thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons and coveted nuclear capacity. . . . But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States. . . [H]e can be contained."

… snip …

Let us assume that Mr. Obama's "smarter" view had prevailed, that we had left Saddam in power in Iraq. What would the world look like today?

… snip …

At the time of Mr. Obama's 2002 antiwar speech, three other significant, non-Iraqi events were occurring: Iran and North Korea were commencing toward a nuclear break-out, and A.Q. Khan was on the move.

In March 2002, Mr. Khan, the notorious Pakistani nuclear materials dealer, moved his production facilities from Pakistan to Malaysia.

In August, an Iranian exile group revealed the existence of a centrifuge factory in Natanz, Iran.

A month later, U.S. intelligence concluded that North Korea had almost completed a "production-scale" centrifuge facility.

It was also believed in 2002 that al Qaeda was shopping for nuclear materials. In The Wall Street Journal this week, Jay Solomon described how two North Korean operatives through this period developed a network to acquire nuclear technologies.

In short, the nuclear bad boys club was on the move in 2002. Can anyone seriously believe that amidst all this Saddam Hussein would have contented himself with administering his torture chambers? This is fanciful.

… snip …

The definitive account of Saddam's WMD ambitions is the Duelfer Report, issued by the Iraq Survey Group in 2005. Yes, the Duelfer Report concluded that Saddam didn't have active WMD. But at numerous points in the 1,000-page document, it asserted (with quotes from Iraqi politicians and scientists) that Saddam's goal was to free himself of U.N. sanctions and restart his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and other WMD.

… snip …

Imagine the effect on the jolly Iraqi's thinking come 2005 and the rise to stardom of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, publicly mocking the West's efforts to shut his nuclear program and threatening enemies with annihilation. … snip … In North Korea, Kim Jong Il was flouting the civilized world, conducting nuclear-weapon tests and test-firing missiles into the Sea of Japan. In such a world, Saddam would have aspired to play in the same league as Iran and NoKo. Would we have "contained" him?

I think the answer is an obvious no, since we would have already squandered the one opportunity to stop him. By 2004 UN sanctions would have ended (afterall, the inspectors were giving him a clean bill of health) and by 2005 and 2006, he'd have rearmed with chemical weapons and biological weapons. And then what could we have done?

By 2006 or 2007, he'd also have of had operational intermediate range ballistic missiles. And his nuclear program would have been well under way … perhaps based on his joint program with Libya that we only learned about after our soldiers dug Saddam out of that hole in the ground and Libya got cold feet.

No, I think it's almost a virtual certainty that Saddam would have been testing nuclear weapons in his deserts by now. Given that, I think Obama should have offered more thanks than he did to Bush during his recent Iraq address. The last thing the world needed was one more nuclear armed lunatic.

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

Whistling in the breeze...

 

[willhaven]

4400+ Americans would still be alive.

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

4400+ Americans would still be alive.

Not to mention a minimum of 100,000 Iraqi civilians.

Oh, and the U.S. would be > $1trillion less in the hole.

Seriously, anyone still trying to justify this war is both intellectually and morally bankrupt.

 

[leftysergeant]

We would have a couple trillion dollars less debt and maybe a shot at turning the ecconomy around before I retire.

And maybe the Irans would have elected someone less clearly guanophrenic than Ahmadinejad.

Frightened people are more prone to elect lunatics, and the sight of the Shrub tearing up a neighboring country for no good rerason apparently firghtened the Iranians a bit.

 

[Zep]

...but Saddam hasn't stayed. So this is all speculation.

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

We would have a couple trillion dollars less debt and maybe a shot at turning the ecconomy around before I retire.

And maybe the Irans would have elected someone less clearly guanophrenic than Ahmadinejad.

Frightened people are more prone to elect lunatics, and the sight of the Shrub tearing up a neighboring country for no good rerason apparently firghtened the Iranians a bit.

heavens, they're multiplying?

 

[Tricky]

One of the questions I would ask is, "Will Iraq be on friendly terms with us in ten years, and would it be different if Saddam were in power?" Because I see Iraq dissolving into secular warfare and blaming the US for upsetting the balance. I could be wrong, but I don't think there are too many people in Iraq who love the US. Another strongman will emerge. He will make big points by stirring up hatred against the west. We'll be where we were seven years ago.

 

[bit_pattern]

UNSCOM might have been able to finish the job that they started with such resounding success.

 

[bit_pattern]

One of the questions I would ask is, "Will Iraq be on friendly terms with us in ten years, and would it be different if Saddam were in power?" Because I see Iraq dissolving into secular warfare and blaming the US for upsetting the balance. I could be wrong, but I don't think there are too many people in Iraq who love the US. Another strongman will emerge. He will make big points by stirring up hatred against the west. We'll be where we were seven years ago.

Yup, and he will be looking towards developing nuclear capabilities too, except this time allied with a nuclear Iran. Good times!

 

[Foolmewunz]

...but Saddam hasn't stayed. So this is all speculation.

But what if the Confederacy had discovered flight in 1863, eh? Would that have turned things around?

 

[JihadJane]

The last thing the world needed was one more nuclear armed lunatic.

Who else would you include on your nuclear-armed-lunatics list?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Who else would you include on your nuclear-armed-lunatics list?

All of 'em?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

heavens, they're multiplying?

No, no, it's like in baseball where you say, "Those Detroits are really having a lousy second half."

 

[joobz]

No, I think it's almost a virtual certainty that Saddam would have been testing nuclear weapons in his deserts by now.

If by virtual you mean imaginary, I agree.

 

[Praktik]

Not to mention a minimum of 100,000 Iraqi civilians.

Oh, and the U.S. would be > $1trillion less in the hole.

Seriously, anyone still trying to justify this war is both intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Even BAC's nightmare scenario in the OP - obviously a self-serving, retroactive justification based on a slew of "woulda/coulda"s - would be less of a cost than the above.

Foreign policy is about balancing a host of competing interests, and its my contention that even if containment would not have worked (a dubious assertion) - the cost of having that adversary there would be less than the costs endured by removing him. Even looking very narrowly - as is the wont of most Americans looking at this issue - at the cost to American interests only (ignoring the costs to Iraq and the regional interests of other actors).

Then there is the fact that the whole operation gave Iran a strategic boon by unleashing the shiite majority.

 

[FireGarden]

I think the answer is an obvious no, since we would have already squandered the one opportunity to stop him. By 2004 UN sanctions would have ended (afterall, the inspectors were giving him a clean bill of health) and by 2005 and 2006, he'd have rearmed with chemical weapons and biological weapons. And then what could we have done?

Made him a friend, again? Put a bullet in his head?

Worried about chemical weapons in Iraq, circa 2002? Then perhaps it's time to link this story again:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

It's been ignored the other times I've seen it posted on this forum.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

BTW, what would have happened to Saddam's army if he had sent it north to take out Zarqawi?

 

[Beerina]

But what if the Confederacy had discovered flight in 1863, eh? Would that have turned things around?

Screw the planes!

 

[NoScotsman]

Which Obama is smarter ... the anti-war, candidate Obama: who promised an immediate troop withdrawal (in early 2009), or President Obama: who continued Bush's policies ("The Surge," etc.) to a tenuous victory?

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

Which Obama is smarter ... the anti-war, candidate Obama: who promised an immediate troop withdrawal (in early 2009)

I don't recall him actually advocating for immediate withdrawal...