Iraq was better off under Saddam

[Philly]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... fight-isis

Using eynons link and Saz's premise to make a valid general discussion thread.

Not only was Iraq better off under Saddam, but Saddam's reign was better for the whole region and for western interests. Our invasion benefited nobody except for terrorists. A completely disastrous blunder that was neither beneficial nor virtuous.

[eynon81]

imagine a world where the Shah stayed in power.

No Iran-Iraq War.

No Invasion of Kuwait.

No Al Queda.

No (or at least highly marginalized) Taliban.

[uebermann]

[Indy]

Yup.

While you certainly didn't want to cross Saddam or one of his gargoyle sons, Iraq under him was a modern, SECULAR middle eastern country that posed no threat to us or anybody.

Then president Cheney came along after apparently ingesting a handful of Iraqra pills with his PNAC cronies.

Now, the formerly terrorist-free state not only was opened to AQ once we invaded but now is home base for ISIS, which is even worse.

Probably the biggest military/policy blunder in U.S. history. This makes the Bay of Pigs look quaint.

[Philly]

[eynon81]

[Winchester]

[Indy]

I think what you want to say Winchester is imagine a world where we didn't run Operation Ajax, which pretty much sealed our fate with Iran, which, considering all the bad actors in the region, could have been a key ally.

[Professor]

Ummm - y'all do realize that the Saddam that you are describing is the Saddam that WE MADE? Before the smacked him down in 1991, he started wars against Iran and his own people. Then, he invaded Kuwait.

I'm not saying that invading the second time was the wisest course of action. But, if you blame the US for the situation post-Saddam, you have to also give credit to the US for Saddam 1991-2003.

[Professor]

BTW, kudos on starting a new thread! This place was starting to get stale.