Argument: His removal provides stability and security not only for Iraq but for the Middle East as a region

The Middle East is a tinder box at the best of times. Having an unpredictable megalomaniac sitting in the middle of it was dangerous, not only for Iraqis but for other peoples in the region. Hussain was a danger to the Middle East as he had proved many times, through his invasion of Iran [i] which was followed only a couple of years later in 1990 by an invasion of Kuwait which sparked the Gulf War [ii] and his use of scud missiles on Israel which was otherwise uninvolved in the conflict. [iii]

It was better to remove this threat than risk being drawn into a multi-player conflict when he next attacked a neighbor.

[i] Pipes, Daniel, ‘A Border Adrift: Origins of the Iraq-Iran War’, The Iraq-Iran War: Old Conflict, New Weapons, 1983

[ii] BBC on this day, ‘1990: Iraq invades Kuwait’.

[iii] CBC Digital Archives, ‘Scud vs. Patriot missiles’, 19 January 1991

Candidate 1: "There is little evidence that the Ba’ath Party would have tolerated a handover of power to Saddam’s sons. Even in North Korea, the issue of Kim Il Sung’s succession became fraught, and hotly contested amongst the North Korean political elite.. However, the issue of who should run Iraq was and should remain a matter for the Iraqi people. The current puppet regime has little power outside Baghdad and, frankly, not that much inside, this lack of central control is as damaging as too much would be as is shown by the failure of Somalia and resulting civil war and piratical attacks. [i]

In many ways the war has encouraged the world’s rogue states to pursue nuclear weapons as, in an era of ‘pre-emptive defense, they are the only surety against invasion and overthrow [ii] . Iran is continuing to persue nuclear weapons even without the threat of Iraq on its borders, instead it is worried about Israel and the United States. One more threatening state would therefore have made little difference. [iii]

If the aim of the war was to insure against future threats then leaving a nation bitter and resentful, where barely a family has not lost someone to the conflict, a radicalized younger generation, emboldened militant clerics and a weak central government seems a very strange way to go about doing it. The West will almost certainly have to return to Iraq within a generation, if not a decade.

[i] Blair, David, ‘Somalia: Analysis of a failed state’, The Telegraph, 18 November 2008

[ii] Francis Fukuyama. “Iraq May Be Stable, But The War Was Still A Mistake”. Wall Street Journal. 15 August 2008.

[iii] BBC News, ‘Q&amp;A: Iran nuclear issue’, 23 January 2012"
Candidate 2: "By empowering the Shi’a majority, the outcome of the war has provided an obvious link to Iran, an equally obvious threat to Israel and has implication for nations “from Lebanon to Pakistan. [i] ”

The weakness of this government represents a far greater threat to security and regional stability than any dictator, however bloodthirsty. Iraq looks set to join the other lawless regions of Asia such as the Pashtun Valley as an obvious place for terrorists and Criminals to base themselves.

[i] Vali Nasr. “Regional Implications of Shi’a Revival in Iraq”. The Washington Quarterly • 27:3 pp. 7–24. The Centre for International and Strategic Studies and the Massachusetts Institute for Technology. Summer 2004."
Candidate 3: "In the unlikely event that something resembling a democratic government survives in Iraq after the international troops leave then that would, of course, be welcome.

However, some context is required to establish whether the price was worth paying. Over a trillion dollars, 4,000 American dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis, US reputation destroyed in the region to establish a puppet government whose only real chance of survival is a continued American presence in the country.

The alternatives are all unpleasant – a theocratic regime allied to a nuclear Iran, a simple meltdown of the state or the emergence of a new strongman along the lines of Saddam's regime.

Assuming the US can't sign up in perpetuity then one of these outcomes seems likely and those lives and resources will have been squandered for no reason whatsoever [i] .

[i] Francis Fukuyama. “Iraq May Be Stable, But The War Was Still A Mistake”. Wall Street Journal. 15 August 2008."
Candidate 4: "An entire generation has been turned against the West and fundamentalist clerics have gained enormously in influence

The aftermath of the war has been to create an entire people with no reason to love the West and more than100,000 reasons to hate it as a result of an estimated 105-115000 dead. [i] The country is teetering on the brink of civil war, with the leader of the sunni block having said Iraq is heading towards a “sectarian autocracy that carries with it the threat of devastating civil war” [ii] unemployment is rife and the reputation of the ‘liberators’ lies in tatters [iii] .

It is not hard to see how this combination is likely to lead to chaos in Iraq and insecurity for the West. Millions of young people with a perfectly justifiable grudge, little education, no job and a desire to do something to make things right. [iv]

It is difficult to imagine a situation more likely to produce violence, terrorism and instability.

[i] Iraq Body Count

[ii] Loney, Jim, ‘Iraq on the brink of ‘devastating civil war’: Former PM Allawi’, National Post, 28 December 2011

[iii] Malou Innocent. “The Iraq War: Still a Massive Mistake.” Christian Science Monitor. 5 April 2010.

[iv] Benmelech, Efraim et al., ‘Economic Conditions and the Quality of Suicide Terrorism’, Journal of Politics, Vol. 74, No. 1, January 2012, pp. 113-128"
Candidate 5: "The war was illegal and the removal of Saddam should have been left to the Iraqis Yet another puppet regime is not what the Middle East needs

Events from the Arab Spring have demonstrated, more graphically than anything else could have done, that Arab peoples are more than capable of dealing with their own dictators and do not need to be patronized by fading imperial powers.

Imagine what the situation in Iraq would be now following a genuinely democratic uprising rather than the imposition of yet another puppet regime by the West. Since the creation of the state of Iraq as a modern state by the British in 1932, a succession of rulers, of various stripes of dictatorial ruthlessness, have been brought in to ensure that the oil wealth continues to flow to Washington, London and other foreign capitals.

The allies were never interested in Iraqi freedom, this was yet another grab for oil and the results look set to be the same round of misery and tyranny for the people of Iraq."

By empowering the Shi’a majority, the outcome of the war has provided an obvious link to Iran, an equally obvious threat to Israel and has implication for nations “from Lebanon to Pakistan. [i] ”

The weakness of this government represents a far greater threat to security and regional stability than any dictator, however bloodthirsty. Iraq looks set to join the other lawless regions of Asia such as the Pashtun Valley as an obvious place for terrorists and Criminals to base themselves.

[i] Vali Nasr. “Regional Implications of Shi’a Revival in Iraq”. The Washington Quarterly • 27:3 pp. 7–24. The Centre for International and Strategic Studies and the Massachusetts Institute for Technology. Summer 2004.
