I saw a story about this on CNN from a TIME journalist.
The Saudi Push for an Iraq Coup
So, do the politically informed dopers out there think that this is a viable strategy?
I am not an expert on Iraq by any means, but it seems like a reasonable thing to try. If the Iraqi military has a choice between a war with the U.S. and amnesty for most of the government and replacing Saddam and his cronies, why would the not take the opportunity to save Iraq from destruction?
If it will prevent a war, than I believe that it is worth a try.
I am no tree hugging peacenik, in fact I was once a soldier and served in combat in both the Middle East and Central America. But, I abhor war. War should remain the very final option when all other peaceable means have failed, or in the event of an emergency (to prevent mass slaughter of innocent persons). I do not believe that Iraq poses that great of a national security threat to the US. Yes, Saddam is a psychopath, who robs from his own people to take care of himself, and yes, he is vicious in his retributions to any who oppose him in even the most minor of thoughts. But that remains an internal problem or at best a regional problem. I further believe that, if we are invited by any neighbour who is under direct threat or attack that we should consider appropriate action to protect our allies.
I completely support the UN sanctions and inspections and hope that this problem can be dealth with as quickly and as painlessly (read bloodlessly) as possible.
You know, it may well be backed by US money, anyway. And I mean almost directly backed, not in terms of Oil profits.
Which translates as: never. There are always “other options”. But these probably will not work, period.
But what if they cannot protect themselves. Merely having the military backing me doesn’t make a good leader, nor does it make my “unanimous votes” just.
If the Baath Party overthrew Saddam, they could avoid an invasion, provided that they genuinely and sincerely gave up on WMDs. They would have to identify and destroy all the WMDs in the country and stop trying to obtain WMDs. That wouldn’t help the Iraqi people get out from under the fascistic rule of the Baath Party, but it would avoid war. I have no idea whether other leaders in the Baath Party would be wiling to give up all WMDs.
I am mystified at Saudi Arabia’s linking a UN Security Council resolution about amnesty. Iraqi generals are at more risk of a war crimes trial right now than they would be if they overthrew Saddam and began to follow their commitments to the world.
I don’t think there’s any chance that the Security Council would vote this way. The SC is pretty well tied up with determining whether or not an attack on Iraq is appropriate. This would be a distraction. Furthermore, a UN resolution wouldn’t do anything militarily for those who wanted to rise up against Saddam. That’s the real problem. Don’t forget that an uprising is a big risk. An unsuccessful revolt would result in the death of all participants, at a minimum. It might also result in torture and in punishment of their associates and relatives.
I am suspicious of Saudi Arabia’s motive in asking for a UN resolution, since it is neither necessary nor likely to be granted. I suspect that Saudi Arabia is not sincere about this matter. Perhaps they are using it to create a distraction and avoid a UN/US attack on Iraq.
The ‘Saudi’ plan may actually be a Bush administration plan. At least a month ago, the Bush Administration started quietly letting it be known that they would allow Saddam safe passage and immunity from personal attack if he left Iraq voluntarily.
This is one of the benefits you get from taking the kind of hard line the Bush administration has. There’s an old maxim, “If you desire peace, prepare for war.” Saddam is being backed into a corner. He still isn’t convinced that he can wriggle his way out of this, which is why he’s still blustering. I think there is a small but reasonable chance that once it finally sinks in with him that he’s about to die if he doesn’t flee, he’ll run like a rabbit. But it’s a small chance because A) he may not believe guarantees of safety, and B) leaving Iraq would be very dangerous from within, because once people realize he will no longer be in power, they may decide to take a shot at him.
In addition, there’s the question of what to do about his nutbar sons, both of whom make Saddam look like a kindly old grandpa. If he leaves, they will have to go with him, because if they stay and attempt to take power (either one of them), they’ll either be killed by their own people, or the U.S. will kill them.
Damn. Sam beat me to it.
It may well be that we’ve been playing good cop/bad cop all along.
Wouldn’t a US invasion also result in the death or trial of all participants?
Please explain your suspicions about the Saudi motives. If the US is poised for an invasion, this plan may delay it by a week or two. It is not going to prevent it if the Republican Guard does not perform the coup.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by rsa If the US is poised for an invasion, this plan may delay it by a week or two.
‘Please explain your suspicions about the delay being only a week or two. please explain why it is not going to prevent it if the Republican Guard does not perform the coup.’
Come on dude - infer. When you do the sort of nitpicking you just did no one wants to talk any longer. Too many can do that with any post. You know - it just gets too hard to hold everybody’s hand. Think about the post yourself - and then at the last resort - ask in a nice way.
Are you saying that a US invasion would lead to the death or trial of all Iraqi soldiers?
It could delay the UN. If they focus on a way to avoid war (even a hopeless one), the Security Council is less likely to approve an attack.
If this is true, I feel this is a much better solution than all-out war, or the status quo. As for the amnesty: if it prevents thousands of innocent deaths, then who cares if the bastards are still alive somewhere?
But is there a danger that the resultant post-coup regime could be another military dictator? Or a fundamentalist theocracy?
I think the implication of a “coup” generally infers that it’s much more widespread than just the particular leader. I don’t think Udai or his brother would succeed Saddam in the event of a successful coup.
Erek
I terms of a real coup, however, it could only work under some very odd circumstances. Saddam, obviously, knows about this now. Which means he may take out anyone he feels is a threat. He knows he’s screwed one way or another. For this to work, you’d need some top generals being very secretive and moving very quickly.
The Saudi’s “government” is simply scared shitless, which has become thier perpetual condition. They are perched precariously on a big wad of cash and hoping to survive by buying off everybody in sight. Any instability, regardless of its source, terrifies them and the prospect of a general Gulf war, and the neccesity of choosing a side, wets thier collective knickers most profoundly.
Will it work? Well, it goes against one of the most common human instincts: the tendency of people to rally round The Leader in time of crisis, regardless of the relative loathsomeness of said leader. The Bushista’s like to present a picture of Iraqi’s strewing roses in the path of our Brave Boys as we stroll into Baghdad. As a pessimist, I am always delighted to be surprised. I am seldom surprised.
I think Sadams generals with take him out the minute the US invades. That will be the safest time to jump ship. But I could be wrong.
Apologies for my absence from the thread. Something came up unexpectedly which kept me away from the computer for quite an extended period.
I just want to touch on a couple of points made by others.
I understand your concern and perhaps I’m just a hopeless optimist. Couldn’t Bush and company present this as an alternative that may actually help gain approval? IOW, instead of asking for a resolution to approve an attack, ask for a resolution granting the amnesty for a very limited period of time and authorizing an attack if Saddam is still in power after that time.
And forgive my ignorance, but isn’t it the consensus that Bush and a few of our allies will go to war even absent a UN resolution?
But was that really true during the Gulf war? It seems that the regular army was very to quick to put down its arms. And there were those post war uprisings. Granted, they were brutally put down but it seems that that there is a large undercurrent of animosity towards Saddam by his own people.
I guess what it may come down to is how likely is it that the Republican Guard would switch allegiances and go against Saddam. I agree that the regular army probably couldn’t pull off a coup of their own initiative.
IMHO true only when the people see themselves as under attack as well, and their leader as being the only leader who can save them in their imminent peril. When the target is plainly understood to be said loathsome leader himself, and his elite Republican Guard or equivalent, but not the people or their homeland, I don’t think it works that way. Even when thousands of ordinary Iraqis unlucky enough to be drafted were dying in the Gulf War, the bulk of the survivors seemed to be trying to surrender, not fight back - they understood that their own destruction was not the West’s aim, and that they actually agreed with the West’s main objective.
So I don’t worry about repercussions (other than making sure the next leader(s) is/are less loathsome) if a coup works; I just doubt almost completely that it will, after some unknown number of other failed attempts under more dire circumstances during and after the last war. Obviously it would bail a few other keaders in several countries out of their painted-in policy corners if it happened, and their usual cheerleaders would then laud their brilliance. Whatever. But Bush has to leave Saddam an option other than his own death, though, and cutting all of them off publicly is no way to avoid killing lots of people and making it harder to get the survivors’ support. I am not aware of any credible reason to think he is providing such assurances even privately, although there may be some non-decision-makers trying to suggest it.
I think in this case a UN mandate would be very helpful, because it would put added pressure on Hussein. And I don’t see a lot of downside to trying - if the U.S. goes for this, it’ll mean the decision to attack will already have been made if he doesn’t agree. Nothing would stop that freight train.
The problem with a coup is that it can’t be controlled without troops on the ground. Chances are we’d end up with Saddam Lite. And even if you do have troops, chances are the U.S. will be unwilling to use them for the nasty work of establishing law & order, as in Afghanistan.
You’d think the U.S. would have learned how to get out of the coup-encouraging business by now, but nah.
Does the CIA have any of those exploding cigars left?
God, I hope so. Wouldn’t that be peachy.
Of course, GeeDubya will immediatly announce that that was his crafty plan all along. they’re will be back slaps and high fives all around, his numbers will go through the roof and I’ll probably lean against a tree and puke my guts out.
But if it will save thousands of lives, nobody with a shred of decency could be against it.
So, God I hope so. That would be peachy.