I know this is one of those “What if” questions - But let us say, after the Iraqi elections, Bush or Kerry (whoever is in charge) says, “Well, you’re in charge now. We’re going home. After all, it is your country.”
The “elected” government realize they can’t handle the country. So they make a deal with Suddam and he takes over again (hey, it’s not so far fetched - it’s happened before [well - close]).
Does the U.S. send in troops? send in planes? throw in the towel and say “We don’t want to deal with it?”
I would be upset - gross understatement. The US went to Iraq because (according to The Leader):
He had Weapons Of Mass Destruction -gas, germs, etc - none found
He had or was working on nukular weapons - none found
He was a bad Amurrica hating, freedom hating, Amurrica freedom hater
He was in league with Al Queda (however it is really spelled) -no link proven yet.
The next arguments probably will be
he kicked puppies,
ate live kittens and
was wielding the Ring of Sauron.
So, If Saddam was allowed to take over again, my first question MIGHT be well what the fuck did our people die for? What was the whole damn thing for? Then I might do some math on my retirement eleigibility and if possible, maybe leave the fucking country for good. What the hell, Mexico is right down the road from here. They don’t invade anybody. Besides, the Spanish language makes a lot more sense than English, even I might be able to learn it in time.
Say, didn’t I mention Haliburton? I could have sworn I did…right after WMDs. No? You say I didn’t? Oil vay! Gee, I’m sorry…must have slipped my mind when I was pitching my war campaign to the U.N. and the American people! Well, that’s ok…Haliburton’s just gonna overcharge the Army, anyway, so everyone benefits in the end, right? Hey, can’t the troops see how I’m right there behind them all the way (to the bank, that is!) - “W”
Very skillfully, I might add. Various administration officials made statements in which they were very careful never to say directly that Saddam was behind 9/11, yet managed to link Saddam to terrorism, simply by mentioning him in the same sentence as Al Qaida. As a result, close to half the American public still thinks that invading Iraq had something to do with fighting terrorism. Very depressing.
After reading about Santa Anna, the failed nutty dictator who nevertheless managed to take control of Mexico on four separate occasions, I certainly wouldn’t say it’s impossible.
A strong leader who could hold together the country, stop the possiblity of an independent Kurdish state which would inflame Turkey, hold down the Shias and contain Iran?
Is there anything to stop him from throwing his hat into the ring come election time? He certainly won’t have been tried by then, so he would be eligible to run legitimately. Now that would be funny, if the Iraqis freely elected Saddam back into office.
The US wont react at all because its never, never, never going to happen. Great powers dont allow themselves to be publicly humiliated that way. Saddam Hussein is an old man with many troubles, such men are subject to heart attacks… Or perhaps he will accidentally cut off his own head in a hideous toothbrush incident.
- “W”