Alternative Iraq

[muckefuck]

In his journal, fengi laments the dearth of mentions of the War in Iraq on this, the tenth anniversary of its commencement. I was going to let it slide because, frankly, I don't have anything interesting to say about it, and I doubt the majority of my flist do either. Most of the commentary I have seen is rather light on content, or focuses on the stateside effects of the war.

But there is one thing about which I wonder what opinions people have and that is: What do you think Iraq would look like today if the US and its allies had not invaded a decade ago? Who would be in power and with what sort of legitimacy? What would its domestic situation and foreign relations look like, who would be better off and who would be worse?

If someone has links to informed articles addressing this (whether you agree with their conclusions or not) please share them.

Comments

[arkanjil.livejournal.com]

The Atlantic has been posting big photo retrospectives in their In Focus section from 10 years gone, and it's harrowing to think of what all of those pictured went through since then. But as to what might have been? Who can say, through the haze of ethnic cleansing, atrocities, bombings, the trillions spent on no one really knows what, the atrocities on all sides- and the Arab Spring. What's done is done...

But to boil it down to the bitter marrow: I dont think there are many who'd say we are any safer now than we were back then.

[danthered.livejournal.com]

Well, certainly the long-term profits of Blackwater and Halliburton and that lot are "safer", i.e., fatter.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I dont think there are many who'd say we are any safer now than we were back then.

I think this would be safe to say regardless of whether the invasion had been carried out or not.

[arkanjil.livejournal.com]

That I'm not so sure of. Without the war deficit, our politics wouldn't be nearly so toxic, and without BushCos long term guns and butter lending spree, the whole global economy wouldn't have spiraled up and out quite so fast or fallen so far. Iran and N Korea could have been handled very differently by a less belligerent president, and right wing polititions in Israel wouldn't have been quite so emboldened. Given a less volitile oil market, Chavez and Putin wouldn't have had all the money they gained. The rise of the US security state would have probably been slowed, with any luck at all.


And so very many, many people around the world would have had far fewer reasons to despise and fear us. Alas.

[mallorys-camera.livejournal.com]

What an interesting question.

I did the same Google search everyone else can do and came up with this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/05/ifiraqhadnthappened

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I can find almost nothing to agree with in that opinion piece, particularly this paragraph:

For a start, many tens of thousands of ordinary Iraqis would still be alive, as would several thousand troops from the coalition countries. The terrorists born from the resulting anger and grief would not be about their deadly work. Indeed, without the oxygen of Iraq feeding their bitter fires and with the US and more western allies having focused on Afghanistan and the border regions with Pakistan, al-Qaida may be clinging to diminishing relevance in those barren hills. Muslims worldwide would not have been provoked to take a stand against all things western. America would not have sacrificed its principles relating to torture and the Geneva convention, and may not have lost its diplomatic credibility.

The sentence "Muslims worldwide would not have been provoked to take a stand against all things western" packs so many fallacies into one short statement that I can hardly even begin to extract them all.

I also love his touching faith that America would otherwise never have "sacrificed its principles relating to torture". Where exactly does he think the prisoners in Gitmo came from?

[bunj.livejournal.com]

Ten years is a long time to predict what would have happened in a country. One of the reasons why the weapons of mass destruction threat was believed was because it was so believable. It's possible that Hussein would have done something to warrant an invasion in that decade (killing his own people, invading another country, threatening neighbors). If the war in Afghanistan had gone more-or-less the same, the US may have been reluctant to act, though (see the current situation in Syria). He also could have died, leaving one of his psycho sons in charge or setting off a power struggle. If nothing else, I think the Arab Spring would have started a civil war similar to what's happening in Syria (and I see no reason why the Arab Spring would not have happened).

I don't think Iraq would have gotten through the decade unchanged. No Middle Eastern country has, and I don't think the Iraq war is entirely to blame. I also have a hard time believing that the Iraqis would be much better off than they are now, although I don't think they'd be much worse off. Fewer may have died, but I find that hard to predict. Like I said, Iraq wouldn't have emerged unchanged, and I can't imagine change in Iraq without bloodshed. If Hussein were around now, he'd be acting like Assad - brutally murdering his citizens to stay in power.

[come-to-think.livejournal.com]

http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.1363148939.html#_=1363831754679&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&screen_name=sullydish&show_count=true&show_screen_name=true&size=m