Without the Iraq war, would we now be seeing a Tunisian style revolution in Iraq?

Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party · February 23, 2011, 12:48pm

Was Hussein’s grip on the Iraqi people strong enough to withstand a revolution like we’ve seen in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Bahrain? Were the Iraqis persecuted enough to make them feel like such a revolution was viable?

BobLibDem · February 23, 2011, 12:52pm

I think Khadafi (or however you spell his name) is pretty comparable to Hussein. If Khadafi falls, then I wouldn’t say it’s a reach to think Hussein would have as well.

John_Mace · February 23, 2011, 2:32pm

If we had kept the no fly zone in place, I think we would have seen something similar. Without the no fly zone, it’s hard to say, but I’d guess we would still see some protests, but I doubt SH would just give in like the leaders in Tunisia did.

XT · February 23, 2011, 3:41pm

This is what I said in an earlier thread on this subject:

It depends, I think, on whether the embargo was still in effect, and on theoretical events of how exactly things played out. If Saddam was seen as having caused the Americans to back down, and if the embargo had been lifted then I tend to think that he’d still have an iron grip on Iraq (assuming also that he was still alive…he was getting a bit long in the tooth). Certainly the Ba’athists would still have an iron grip.

On the one hand, you had a large majority Shi’ite population (along with a smaller but fervent Kurdish population) controlled by a minority Sunni population. However, Saddam et al had put both the Shi’ite and Kurd populations down pretty hard after the first Gulf War, and I’m unsure how willing they would be to give it another try without some indication of outside support. On the other hand, eventually even the most brutal tyrant willing to go to the most extreme measures is going to start to lose their grip. To paraphrase Princess Leia: The more you tighten your grip, the more power will slip through your fingers.

I’d say that IF the Iraqis had started protests along the lines of what we are seeing in the ME and North Africa right now, it would be more like Libya than what’s happening in Jordan and Kuwait…probably much more over the top than what’s happening even in Libya actually, since Saddam had even less restraint about unleashing his military on the populace.

I think it would depend on what assumptions you made on alternative history. Is Iraq still under embargo? Are we still imposing a no-fly zone and constant watch? Has Saddam loosened his grip on the Shi’ia and Kurd’s? I’d say that if the same sorts of things that are happening in Libya were happening in an Iraq with no Gulf War that it would be even worse there, as I think that Saddam had even less compunction about unleashing his military on the populace. And we already know that he’d be more than willing to burn his oil fields to further disrupt things. If Libya AND Iraq were both in similar states of rebellion atm I think that the price of oil would be shooting through the roof to record highs.

-XT

Ryan_Liam · February 23, 2011, 3:50pm

In regards to Libya similarities, they don’t have a major protagonist (The Iranians) next door to them. I doubt highly the Sunni leadership in Baghdad would just allow these, in their eyes, Iranian inspired protestors to overthrow them.

I’m actually gonna go out on a limb and declare that because Saddam was removed, it removed alot of the rationale for Iranians to be suppressed, and thus paved the way for major protests in Iran. I mean, hey Shias in Iraq have a democratic voice, free press, some forms of liberty, why don’t Iranians have that??

XT · February 24, 2011, 8:50pm

The thread seems dead, but I was reading this article on Time and figured I’d link to it. The author seems to think that had Saddam still been in office we wouldn’t be seeing a Tunisian style revolution (or Egyptian style) in Iraq…at best, we’d be seeing what’s going on in Libya, reading between the lines. Anyway, here it is if anyone is interested:

In early 2003, some weeks before the start of the Iraq war, I had a conversation about nonviolent protest with my friend Na’il, in Baghdad. Although he was assigned by Saddam Hussein’s information ministry to monitor my movements, Na’il was no fan of the Iraqi dictator. Whenever we were alone, he spoke candidly about his desire to leave the country. He had no hope that Saddam may one day be toppled. “Iraqi people are cursed,” he kept saying.

He was so depressed, I tried to lift his spirits by talking about how other peoples had extricated themselves from hopeless situations. Nonviolent movements had overthrown tyranny in India, South Africa and, more recently, in Eastern Europe, I said. But Na’il was unconvinced. Nonviolence could only work, he said, if the regime was reluctant to use violence against his own people. Saddam had no such compunctions. “If there were a million Gandhi’s in Iraq,” Na’il said, “Saddam would send the Republican Guard to kill every one of them, and they would do it without any hesitation.”

The more I’ve thought of it, the more convinced I’ve become that Na’il was right. The Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings succeeded because the military forces of those countries refused to protect the regimes by cracking down on their own countrymen. The Egyptian military’s self-image is that of a force that protects the nation and the people, not Hosni Mubarak. Yes, many top officers were his cronies, but when the push came to shove, their loyalty to the state was greater than their loyalty to the regime. The same was true in Tunisia.

Saddam, on the other hand, could always count on two armed groups whose ONLY reason for being was their loyalty to him: the Republican Guard, and the paramilitary Fedayeen Saddam. As they showed while putting down the Shi’ite uprising after the Kuwait war, these forces were perfectly happy to kill tens of thousands of Iraqis on his orders.

In that sense, Saddam’s Iraq was like today’s Iran. The regime in Tehran has been able to survive popular protests because it, too, can call on armed groups to suppress the protesters: the Revolutionary Guard and the 'Baseej" militia.

-XT

Steve_MB · February 24, 2011, 10:32pm

Almost certainly. While I’m not all that familiar with the demographics of Libya, I doubt that they have anywhere near the internal problems Saddam Hussein had with the Shiite and Kurdish populations. If anything, the tinderbox probably would have flared up in Iraq before it did in Libya.

tagos · February 25, 2011, 3:13pm

Yes they’d be having one and Hussein was no more mad and brutal than Gadaffi. And with the established no fly zones it would be easier to succeed.

They’re having their own Day of Rage there now against our imposed system also.

XT · February 25, 2011, 3:24pm

He was no less brutal either (actually, I think he was more brutal, but it’s not worth arguing about). And the Iraqi’s had a much more powerful and consolidated military…especially if it hadn’t been wiped out in a second war with the US. He also had his paramilitary force, as well as his secret police force and, of course, there was the fact that the Ba’ath party itself, regardless of Saddam, was strong and capable.

Do you expect that the no fly zones would still be in effect? :dubious: I mean, what would that have been? 20 years? 21? That’s a pretty long time.

I think the last line in the article I linked to sums that up:

-XT

wmfellows · February 25, 2011, 4:52pm

I don’t think there is anything to indicate that Hussein was particularly insane at all. Mean, unpleasant etc., but not barking raving mad like Gaddafi clearly is. The American and UK (Blair) characterisations notwithstanding.

I rather think that if Libya has gone, then Iraq would, given the vast reservoir of Shia resentment.

XT · February 25, 2011, 5:00pm

I don’t think it’s a matter of whether they would have wanted too or not, but whether they would have been willing too. Perhaps enough time would have elapsed since Saddam put down the Shia and Kurds post-Gulf War I. Certainly had the embargo still been in effect the people of Iraq would have been suffering a great deal, upping their resentment factor.

But even if they were protesting and even rioting and rebelling like in Libya I’m unsure the outcomes would be the same. I guess it depends on what transpired in the 8 years since history diverged, and how much of a grip Saddam and the Ba’athist had on the country. Also, what would the Sunni’s be doing?

I tend to agree with the guy from the Times in the article I linked to earlier, but it would hinge on how alternative history played out. For all we know, Saddam may have kicked the bucket and shuffled off, leaving a potential power vacuum that could have been filled by one of his sons or by someone else…or not filled at all as the country fragmented.

-XT