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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2013-03-20 03:11 pm (UTC)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.