# Post Hussein Plans? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 9, 2002, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667 "2002-09-09T15:49:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/1 "2002-09-09T15:49:04Z")
A simple question. Hussein is deposed…then what? Democratic, representative governments are not the first concept that springs to mind when you hear the term “Middle East,” so I’d like to hear what those of you who are more well versed on the subject than I think will be the post-Hussein outcome in Iraq (on the assupmption that he is, in fact, deposed) ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/2 "2002-09-09T20:46:15Z")
Well, let’s take a look at the last time there was a challenge to Hussein’s regime - at the end of the Second Gulf War in 1991. Kurds in the north and Shi’a Muslims in the south were organizing rebellions against Saddam Hussein. George Bush promised them aid and support. But when it came down to brass tacks, he instead allowed Saddam Hussein to violate the “no-fly” zones in order to crush both rebellions from the air. In 1998, Peter Jennings commented, “The United States did want Saddam to go, they just didn’t want the Iraqi people to take over.” Brent Scowcroft came in with this: “I wish it hadn’t happened. I envisioned a postwar government being a military government.” So more than likely, **plnnr** , you’re probably right - it won’t be a democratic, representative government that replaces the Hussein regime. But whose fault is that? Certainly not the Iraqi people’s fault, or the fault of some sociopolitical factor unique to the Middle East. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/3 "2002-09-09T21:45:40Z")
Afghnaistan sure doesn’t have any history of democracy, but with the UN’s help, they’re trying to create one. I would expect similar efforts in Iraq. There is precedent for success: we did create a fine democracy in Japan after WW II. Still, it’ll be tough to do that in Iraq (and Afghanistan is by no means a stable, working democracy yet.) We may well fail, but we ought to try. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2002, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/4 "2002-09-10T21:05:29Z")
No no no. There was a 5-prong civil war after Britain divided Iraq and Kuwait and left. With Hussein and his minions gone, that civil war will resume, with the difference being that the Ba’ath group will be weakened. ---
**Author:** ![Estilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Estilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Estilicon)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2002, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/5 "2002-09-10T21:53:26Z")
I don’t know what is the solution. That is unimportant, after all who the hell I am, the problem is that little Bush doesn’t seem to know the answer. And still he is eager to topple Saddam. He certainly seems to be a moron, a dangerous one. ---
**Author:** ![UncleAl0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/a9a28c/32.png) [@UncleAl0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleAl0)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2002, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/6 "2002-09-10T22:19:59Z")
Occam’s Razor: thermonuclear ablation of Iran’s cities. Twenty 300 kT warheads is two MIRV’d Peacekeepers. They need periodic certification anyway. 1. The problem is irreversibly solved. 2. A 14th century religion obsessed with martyrdom can discover just how large its appetite is. 3. We send in some Texans and a long line of oil tankers. 4. President Bush the Lesser sends a brief note to Iran, the Palestinian Authority, and North Korea: Eternity is long but life is short. The US is done talking. The US will now stomp those who bother it. Welcome to Hell. A stable family requires a strong patriarch. – Uncle Al [http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm](http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm) (Do something naughty to physics) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2002, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/7 "2002-09-11T01:45:52Z")
**UncleAl:** You know that’s a fantasy, right? And that it’s an evil notion, right? Here’s more likely what would happen: 1. U.S. government launches nuclear weapons at Iraq population centers. 2. A horrified U.S. populace demands impeachment of the president for authorizing this. 3. Arab Nations scream for help to the rest of the world. 4. Russia and France and Pakistan announce a new policy of defending other states against first use of nukes - by responding with nukes if another atttack should come anywhere. 5. The U.S. suffers a horrible PR backlash around the world, and new military alliances form between Russia, the EU, and other countries, in order to build a deterrant against the ‘American Threat’. 6. Hell freezes over, because there is no way the U.S. would ever do the kind of despicable thing you are suggesting. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2002, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/8 "2002-09-22T07:13:07Z")
Uncle AlO, this is precisely what al-Qaeda is planning–for the US gov’t to overreach themselves to teh point of no return. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2002, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/9 "2002-09-22T13:50:03Z")
Whether or not I agree that removing Saddam is warranted, I have this sinking feeling that the image of U.S. troops occupying Baghdad, even if they do so only for a few weeks, will produce the best recruiting poster al-Qaeda ever had. I think it would increase the danger of anti-U.S. terrorism tenfold. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2002, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/10 "2002-09-25T16:33:59Z")
[Nicholas Kristof](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/24/opinion/24KRIS.html) argues in pretty convincing IMO detail for a bloody revolt by the majority Shiites and Kurds against the Sunnis in much of the nation, in the tradition of suddenly-nonoppressed peoples in other countries, followed by much-stronger Iranian Shiite influence over Iraq, and possibly an uncontainable Kurdish independence movement. Or, if you like, Bosnia and Kosovo on a much larger scale, with no military force in the world powerful enough to contain it. In simple terms of minimizing the death count, probably the _best_ outcome would be an imposition of another military dictatorship, similar to the current one but with new names, and some promise of restraint in return for easing of Western restrictions over the economy. “Democracy”, I hear you say? Based on precisely what current organizations or national history, pray tell? Maybe in some future generation, but now? What gives you the idea that it can be put in place _now_ as anything more than a make-the-West-feel-good Potemkin facade? Now, who thinks the White House decisionmakers have actually considered that the question of what happens after the occupation of Baghdad even matters? Or, are they more on UncleAl’s level? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2002, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/11 "2002-09-25T17:49:17Z")
Well, here’s the fork in the road. If the US does this thing unilaterally, without all that messy UN stuff, then the US gets all the goodies unto itself. Even as we speak, there is no doubt a bidding war between all those candidates (recently paraded in swimsuit competition as Leaders of the Iraqi Opposition). Who amongst them is the most blubberingly grateful. And who amongst them has the clearest vision as to the correct procedures for rebuilding the Iraqi economy. Who most clearly sees the advantages for Iraqi democracy offered by Exxon, BP, and other stalwarts of civic virtue? Of course, a continuing American military presence will be necessary to protect the fragile democracy. America stands ready to shoulder the burden of being the dominant military power in the Middle East. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2002, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/12 "2002-09-25T18:02:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*If the US does this thing unilaterally, without all that messy UN stuff… \*\* If the US acts without the “messy UN stuff,” we will be supported by the UK, as Tony Blair has made clear. With that leadership, I would expect several other countries to participate, to one degree or another. Qatar and Kuwait are already more-or-less on board. I expect Australia and Turkey to support th effort. I wouldn’t be surprised if Germany bent over backwards to help out, in order to heal their rift with the US. So, even without the UN, an attack on Iraq would be carried out by a coalition of countries. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2002, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/13 "2002-09-25T19:37:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*America stands ready to shoulder the burden of being the dominant military power in the Middle East. \*\* Thank you, Rudyard Kipling. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2002, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/14 "2002-09-25T19:38:52Z")
Tony’s got his hands full–it’s by no means certain that he can deliver the UK. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk\_politics/2279846.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_politics/2279846.stm) > [@](#): > > Wednesday, 25 September, 2002, 07:04 GMT 08:04 UK > Blair takes stock of Iraq rebels > > UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is taking stock of the battle he faces to unite his own party before committing Britain to any war against Iraq after a Commons rebellion by 53 Labour MPs. > > The number of dissenters who registered their opposition at the end of an emotional emergency debate was higher than expected, although the government said the result had no real significance. > > But it has made public the extent of internal opposition the prime minister faces ahead of next week’s party conference at which delegates are likely to debate an anti-war resolution. > > And the extent of the rebellion - which was supported by a number of MPs from other parties - will also give a boost to campaigners as they prepare to announce details of an anti-war rally in London at the weekend. In the Beeb’s opinion, only Israel, Kuwait, Australia, and possibly Saudi Arabia and Japan are on board. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in\_depth/2240570.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2240570.stm) > [@](#): > > Turkey: "But Ankara is very hesitant to join in an invasion of Iraq, and may make financial conditions for their support. " > > Germany: "Gerhard Schroeder has said: “Under my leadership Germany will not be available for adventures.” > > France: “Has backed the return of weapons inspectors, but has serious reservations about an attack on Iraq.” > > Russia: "Moscow has said that a new UN resolution is not necessary now that Iraq has given permission for weapons inspectors to return. " > > Israel: "Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has repeatedly called for President Bush not to delay military action. " > > Bahrain: "Bahrain’s King, Sheikh Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, expressed his “determined opposition to any unilateral military action against Iraq”. > > Kuwait: “Kuwait is the strongest regional supporter of plans to topple Saddam Hussein - despite unanimous Arab League statements vigorously opposing unilateral military action.” > > Qatar: "But in the meantime, Qatar, like other Gulf states, would prefer a diplomatic solution to be found. " > > Saudi Arabia: "Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said it would allow the US to use its bases for a strike on Iraq - providing the action is endorsed by the UN. " > > Egypt: “Egypt sent troops to fight with the coalition in the Gulf War, but Mr Mubarak has argued this time the Americans should first tackle the Israeli-Palestinian crisis”. > > Iran: "Officially Tehran opposes an attack on Iraq. " > > Jordan: "With a large Palestinian population and a border with Iraq, Jordan has vociferously opposed military action against Iraq. " > > Syria: "…it views military action as part of an attempt to install puppet regimes in the region to serve US and Israeli interests. " > > China: "However, it is not expected to support a military campaign. " > > Japan: "…is cautious about supporting a new war. " > > Australia: "The government has promised to give “serious consideration” to a request for military help from the United States. " So that may be a coalition of sorts, but I’d be very surprised to see the any of these nations join Cowboy George in his own personal crusade _without_ some kind of official UN imprimatur on the expedition. Can’t see Tony doing it without Parliament a-tall, come to that. The Brits are allowed to hold new elections for PM any time they get sick of the one they’ve got, and can muster up the support in Parliament to call for new elections, right? So he may find his job at stake, if he annoys and/or frightens enough of his constituency. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2002, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/15 "2002-09-25T19:58:41Z")
“Thank you, Rudyard Kipling…” \<\< snicker \>\> [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/kipling.html](http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/kipling.html) 😃 ---
**Author:** ![keeper0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b19c9b/32.png) [@keeper0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/keeper0)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/16 "2002-09-26T14:05:14Z")
I spent a half hour in which I should have been working reading [this Atlantic Monthly article](http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/11/fallows.htm). I think it clearly articulates why we need broad international support, particularly from Iraq’s neighbors. He starts with the assumption that the government has more reason to fear Hussein than they have told us, and that the US would win the war. He then uses input from a broad range of experts to speculate on what a post-war Iraq would be like, and what our responsibilities would be. > [@](#): > > If we had to choose a single analogy to govern our thinking about Iraq, my candidate would be World War I… The Great War is also relevant as a powerful example of the limits of human imagination: specifically, imagination about the long-term consequences of war. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/17 "2002-09-26T14:44:52Z")
I’m glad to see this thread back again - the lack of input in the early stages confirmed my fears: No one, including the Bush administration, has carefully thought about what happens after Hussein falls and at what expense the US will have to manage affairs in Iraq. I’m still not convinced this course of action is in the best interest of the US. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/18 "2002-09-26T17:33:51Z")
Well, if you wanna know what a post-war Iraq would be like, just look around the world to find a country that fits in the following story: 1. It was originally part of a large, powerful empire. 2. After the large, powerful empire collapsed, the country became a kingdom. 3. Then it was a republic, for a few years. 4. Then they started having coups, with a succession of military strongmen taking power. 5. Then the latest military strongman stepped on the toes of another, different, large and powerful empire, who one way or another had him removed. Okay, so what happens next in the story? Does the large, powerful empire: A. Install an out-and-out puppet dictator as “president” (“Some Guy”), who will do their bidding at long distance, backing him up with Imperial troops stationed in his country? B. Install the strongest of the local political leaders as “president”, and then peer over his shoulder and micromanage everything he does, backing _him_ up with Imperial troops, too? C. Install the strongest of the local political leaders as “president”, and then get out of his way, perhaps leaving just a few Imperial troops there just in case he wants to use them for backup? D. Take a poll of the people and ask them who they want for a leader (this is known as an “election”)? I haven’t seen anything in the news that indicates that the Bush administration has thought this thing through. All I hear is “regime change, regime change”, but nobody’s said what happens _next_ in the story. It’s kind of like hearing, “Cinderella goes to the ball, and dances with the prince, and then runs away when the clock strikes midnight, leaving a glass slipper behind.” And that’s it. ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/19 "2002-09-26T19:59:20Z")
all this prophesying is nice–but it all rests on the assumption thea the West will succeed in defeating Saddam. Sure, we have massive air power, but Saddam has a massive underground, nuclear-proof bomb shelter. He will simply duck downstairs for a month , and then step outside, survey the ruined buildings , and declare that he is the greatest winner in history, because he stood up to the Americans. The civilian population may be miserable, with no electricity or water supply, but he will still be the ruling tyrant. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667/20 "2002-09-26T21:17:58Z")
> [@](#): > > all this prophesying is nice–but it all rests on the assumption thea the West will succeed in defeating Saddam. Sure, we have massive air power, but Saddam has a massive underground, nuclear-proof bomb shelter. He will simply duck downstairs for a month , and then step outside, survey the ruined buildings , and declare that he is the greatest winner in history, because he stood up to the Americans. > The civilian population may be miserable, with no electricity or water supply, but he will still be the ruling tyrant. This assumes that in order for Saddam to lose, he would need to be killed or captured. I don’t believe this is the case. Saddam doesn’t have support because he’s a great leader, or a nice guy. He has support because people are scared of him. Without the promise that he can force his followers to do nasty things to you, there’s not more reason to be scared of Saddam than any other random bully. If we invade Iraq, take over Baghdad, drive Saddam away, and scatter the Republican Guard, then install a new government a la Afghanistan, backed by US troops, Saddam can’t just waltz on in and resume power six months later. He’ll have been neutered, and will have lost his ability to cause fear. And if the people start to get a taste of democracy, like in Afghanistan - those people love us now, by Middle Eastern standards - I don’t see them letting Saddam get power. If they saw him in the streets, after the years of terror he’s dished out, they’d probably tear him apart with their hands. Jeff [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-hussein-plans/127667.md?page=2)