OK, I’ve been thinking about this a bit, and it seems that something obvious is missing. In other threads, Collunsbury et al. have suggested that sanctions against Iraq continue in large part because the U.S. is adhering to what George Carlin calls the ‘Bigger Dick Foreigh Policy Theory’ - that is, no good reason except that to do so would be a sign of weakness. However, what bugs me is this: Although [url http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1991/687e.pdf] Resolution 687 says that once Iraq complies with the weapons inspection regime, the sanctions “shall have no further force or effect,” the U.S. has repeatedly said that the sanctions will likely remain as long as Hussein is in power.
Now that I think about it, this question really is related to sanctions only tangentially, and it is this: Why is Hussein still in power? The party line [afaik] is that the US wants him gone. Besides the obviously ineffective sanctions, however, it doesn’t seem that anything has really been done to oust him. So, it follows [at least to me] that the US either wants him there or doesn’t mind him being there. Have any US official types ever said anything to this effect? What’s the official word on why he’s not been ousted? After all, no Hussein means no sanctions means the heat is off America in that regard. Is it that because even though he’s not such a swell guy, he is a relatively stable force that keeps the oil flowing and at the same time is crippled militarily and easy to keep in check?
Related question: What percentage of the world’s oil comes from Iraq [or could, theoretically]?
The US wanted a coup from one of Saddams generals that never came or an uprising that did come . However one of the terms of the surrender was that Iraq was allowed to use their helicopters and another was that they could use their military forces within their borders as they saw fit. In the south there was a major uprising and Saddam crushed it.Even though coalition troops were a few KM away and could see the carnage happening they were ordered not to intervene. In the north the Kurds also had an uprising and Saddam also crushed it causing a major exodus of refugees US war planes were patroling the no fly zones and were ordered not to intervene as they used helicopters not fixed wing jets.
no cite but saw this quite recently on BBC warring world or something.
Your other questions are not general questions but matters of political debate. However this one is a GQ:
Per Deutsche Bank Alex Brown estimates, October 2000 (private publication), Iraqi sustainable production capacity is around 2.9 mmb/d (millions barrels/day) as compared to 3.8 for Iran, 2.55 for UAE, 2.7 Kuwait and 2.4 for Nigeria. For example.
Total OPEC crude export is around 27.41 mmb/d while non-Opec is around 46.67 mmb/day of which 21.91mmb/d is OECD generated, 8.5 mmb/d is USSR.
Total (extractable) reserves are an economic question and not fully known.