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.
As opposed to WMDs potentially being sold by an organized government with a deliberate agenda, and people being systematically murdered.
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.
This could be a problem, though without doing my homework, I don’t know how likely it is.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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 covers many of Turkey’s concerns, including the potential Kurdistan.
The US claims it would not support such a state in this article, 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?
"What are the non-military options for changing the regime in Iraq? "
Answer: Wait.
Chance of success: 100%.