# What are the non-military options for changing the regime in Iraq? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 25, 2002, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-non-military-options-for-changing-the-regime-in-iraq/125488 "2002-08-25T13:47:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Genseric](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Genseric](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Genseric)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2002, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-non-military-options-for-changing-the-regime-in-iraq/125488/21 "2002-08-29T04:00:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Windwalker \* > \*\* > > Ah, but you forget that Saddam has dual-classed from that 0-level human to a 20th level assasin (he gained a lot of XP offing his high-level extended family). The best option is to hit him with Mordenkainen’s Sword and an Earth Golem or two (cuz his saves are too good for direct damage spells), while casting a Prismatic Sphere around him so he can’t slink away into the shadows again… > > Man, I’ve played too much Baldur’s Gate II 🙂 > > - Wind \*\* If we’re talking BGII: Throne of Bhaal, you could just waltz into Baghdad wearing the Cloak of Mirroring, cast Time Stop, then Improved Alacrity, followed by three Abi-Dalzim’s Horrid Wiltings. Game over, man, game over. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2002, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-non-military-options-for-changing-the-regime-in-iraq/125488/22 "2002-08-29T15:46:50Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. Absolute freaking chaos (a la Somalia): No effective central control, weapons of mass destruction being sold by janitors in military installations to exactly the people we don’t want to have them. People starving in the streets. As opposed to WMDs potentially being sold by an organized government with a deliberate agenda, and people being systematically murdered. > [@](#): > > 1. A new dictator: Except the first thing he has to do is crush any resistance to his position. Lots of blood in the streets. There isn’t much credible resistance to the current regime, and I doubt a new dictator would perceive them to be any more of a threat than Saddam does. The “crushing” would likely be focused on those high up in Saddam’s circle, and I have a hard time shedding tears for them. > [@](#): > > 1. Balkanization: Iraq becomes Kurdistan, Iraq (Sunni) and South Iraq (Shiite). Kurdistan becomes a base of operations for rebels in Turkey and the Shiites start to piss off the Saudis by increasing ties with Iran. The region becomes even more volatile. This could be a problem, though without doing my homework, I don’t know how likely it is. > [@](#): > > 1. US installed “friendly” government: We win and put in a governement that (rightly or wrongly) is seen as a puppet of our interests. Anti-US sentiment grows and terrorism threats increase. Actually, I think that having a friendly government there would either have no effect on sentiment, or would actually improve it. The fewer nations in the mideast that train their children from birth to hate Americans and Jews, the better. I know that Iraq isn’t as bad in this regard as some nations (_cough_ Saudi Arabia _cough_), but I think the more friendly allies we get in the area, the better for us. Also, getting a democratic, pro-capitalist government in there would increase wealth in the area, which tends to make folks happier. I suppose your point is generally well taken, though. It _could_ get worse. Heck, we could wind up with a genetically altered Super Saddam that has fire breath and can do the Jedi Death Grip. But I think the odds of the situation becoming appreciable worse are pretty small as compared to the odds of them becoming substantially better. Jeff ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2002, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-non-military-options-for-changing-the-regime-in-iraq/125488/23 "2002-08-29T15:51:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Increasing the fuel economy of automobiles in the US is a completely non-military option. Less dependence on foreigh oil (our only real concern in the Middle East, regardless of our cries for demorcratic gov’t, end to terrorism, etc.) and we could greatly reduce our need for involvement in the area (including giving a damn about wheter Iraq lobs a missle at her neighbors). Umm… yeah. I think that if my car got 35 mpg instead of 30, Palestinians would stop suicide bombing the Jews, Al Qaeda would decide that Americans really aren’t all that bad, Saddam would stop developing nukes, and all would be right with the world. Thanks for sharing. Jeff ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2002, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-non-military-options-for-changing-the-regime-in-iraq/125488/24 "2002-08-30T01:42:56Z")
**EJ:** _Umm… yeah. I think that if my car got 35 mpg instead of 30, Palestinians would stop suicide bombing the Jews, Al Qaeda would decide that Americans really aren’t all that bad, Saddam would stop developing nukes, and all would be right with the world._ Um, not quite. More realistically, though, ceasing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil would likely lessen our alignment both with the hard-line Israeli right and with the Saudi regime. Best-case scenario: we’d lean on Israel and the PA for the rapid establishment of a two-state partition with pre-1967 borders and shared control of Jerusalem, and lean on the Saudis for increased democracy and power-sharing, enabling us to pull troops out of the Mecca region. Terrorist wingnuts among Palestinians and al-Qaeda would probably still go right on trying to kill people, but their saner compatriots would be much less sympathetic, since their legitimate grievances would be addressed; and the wingnuts could no longer make a plausible case to them that the US and Israel are really waging some kind of anti-Muslim crusade. (Worst-case scenario: we’d begin to consider MidEast issues irrelevant and detach ourselves almost entirely from the region, as we did from Afghanistan after the Soviet threat was removed, and intraregion and intrastate conflicts would escalate into actual and prolonged war.) Worst, best, or any case, Saddam Hussein (and anybody else who could manage it) would probably try to go on developing WMDs. However, that’s exactly what the Soviets did for nearly 50 years, and we didn’t imagine that we could best deal with that threat by going in with an army to enforce a “regime change” that would kill lots of civilians. Rather, we used a combination of containment, deterrence, and diplomacy to minimize the immediate dangers, while the Soviet people got sick enough of their leaders to push for a regime change themselves, under the banner of Western-style democracy (as a large number of Iranians are currently trying to do). _I think that having a friendly government [in Iraq] would either have no effect on sentiment, or would actually improve it. The fewer nations in the mideast that train their children from birth to hate Americans and Jews, the better._ Unfortunately, the “friendliness” of the few people running a regime doesn’t necessarily correlate with the unwillingness of the many people they rule to train their children to hate Jews and/or Americans. Just look at our ally Saudi Arabia, for example. Diplomatically, we’re real tight with them: their ruling family gets special visas to visit us, they give us good deals on oil, we sell them tons of weaponry and put troops in their country to keep their regime stable. But as you yourself point out, they’ve got some of the world’s most virulent hatred of Americans (and Jews) among the populace itself. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2002, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-non-military-options-for-changing-the-regime-in-iraq/125488/25 "2002-08-30T03:54:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kambuckta \* > **Yeah. At the risk of being flamed or at least severely singed, what HAS Saddam done to the US recently? Why is there this overwhelming need to _deal_ with him? What sort of a threat is he to US security?** I think the general feeling is that he’s violated the UN agreements made after the Gulf War allowing international inspection of Iraqi labs, and there’s the fear that he’s close to developing a nuclear bomb, and the US sort of feels that a nuclear bomb in Hussein’s hands might not be the most stablizing thing in the world. ---
**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:** [August 30, 2002, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-non-military-options-for-changing-the-regime-in-iraq/125488/26 "2002-08-30T05:11:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Um, not quite. More realistically, though, ceasing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil would likely lessen our alignment both with the hard-line Israeli right and with the Saudi regime. I don’t get this. What makes you think U.S. support for Israel would DEcrease? The U.S. supports Israel in spite of, and not because of, its dependence on mid-east oil. What would happen is that the U.S. would start loosening ties with the regimes it doesn’t like but has had to deal with, like Saudi Arabia. The result would be more of a polarizing of the mid-east, with the U.S. firmly on the side of Israel. ---
**Author:** ![keeper0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b19c9b/32.png) [@keeper0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/keeper0)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2002, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-non-military-options-for-changing-the-regime-in-iraq/125488/27 "2002-08-30T16:05:07Z")
**I said:** \*1) Absolute freaking chaos (a la Somalia): \* **El Jeffe said:** \*As opposed to WMDs potentially being sold by an organized government with a deliberate agenda, and people being systematically murdered. \* Contrary to popular belief, I don’t think Saddam is insane. Ruthless, yes, but bright and politcally savvy. He made a mistake in Kuwait in '90 and he knows it. As long as we are paying attention to him, I don’t think he will sell his WMDs. Because, then we would easily get our international coalition, and he would be gone. That’s why I think our best bet is to keep containment and push for effective inspections and WMD disarmament. I don’t think that will be easy, but I think it is more likely than a smooth “regime change”. \*\*I said:\*\*\*3) Balkanization: Iraq becomes Kurdistan, Iraq (Sunni) and South Iraq (Shiite). \* **El Jeffe said:** \*This could be a problem, though without doing my homework, I don’t know how likely it is. \* Here are a couple articles that talk about the issue. [This one](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/1901485.stm) covers many of Turkey’s concerns, including the potential Kurdistan. > [@](#): > > The fear is that it could split into three parts as the nation is divided between the Shia south, the Sunni centre and the Kurdish north. > > The creation of a no-fly zone in northern Iraq turned it into a sanctuary for Turkish Kurds who were seeking to break away from the Iraqi state. > > Rebels often resorted to attacks and Turkey responded with a brutal scorched-earth campaign against its own Kurds. > > It fears that the establishment of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq could embolden the Turkish Kurdish minority. The US claims it would not support such a state in [this article](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/2128427.stm), but does not really explain to my satisfaction how it would keep it from happening. I mean, are we willing to use our troops to forcibly keep it part of Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-non-military-options-for-changing-the-regime-in-iraq/125488/28 "2002-09-01T04:21:03Z")
"What are the non-military options for changing the regime in Iraq? " Answer: Wait. Chance of success: 100%. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-non-military-options-for-changing-the-regime-in-iraq/125488.md?page=1)