Saddam Hussein and the Arab Spring

[Ranger2]

What would an Iraq where Saddam never had been ousted look like today?

Let's assume that the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and the other coalition forces had never invaded Iraq, nor any of the sanctions on Saddam's regime had been substantially changed, nor any of Iraq's alliances had changed since early March 2003, meaning that it would still be hostile towards Iran and Saudi Arabia.

With the Arab Spring hurtling throughout the Arab World, how do you think Saddam would have fared? Would Saddam's regime be overthrown like in Egypt or Libya? Would he crush any opposition and have his rule remain stable? Would he end up like fellow Ba'athist al-Assad, stuck in a raging civil war?

While I believe that 2003-2011 would have seen continued political repression and stability, I think that at the very least, massive anti-Saddam protests would be going on in Iraq today. His system of secular Arab socialism was comparable to Mubarak's, Gaddafi's, and al-Assad's in term of domestic and economic affairs.

Arguments that Saddam would be able to get a handle on the protestors:
Despite heavy UN sanctions, two no-fly zones, and two massively damaging wars (Iran-Iraq war, Gulf War) Saddam until 2003 managed to stay very securely in power. His army and secret police were very effective and stamping out any dissention.

Arguments that Saddam would not be able to get a handle on the protestors:
With a Sunni minority rule, Kurdish problems in the north, and the fact that it was bordered by two hostile states (that could easily fund/arm/aid rebels,) and the fact that it had few powerful allies (Russia probably wouldn't have come to Saddam's aid like it did to al-Assad,) Saddam most likely would have been on his own.

So what do you think? Had we not taken out Saddam, what would Iraq look like today? Would it be better, worse, or the same as it is today?

[Camarohusky]

I'd actually venture to say that without the US invasion of Iraq, the Arab Spring may have never occurred, and if it did, it likely wouldn't be as strong.

Much of the populist sentiment that fueled the uprisings came from the grassroot Islamic groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood. If the US had not invaded Iraq, it is highly likely these groups wouldn't be as powerful, and definitely wouldn;t be as populist. The rallying cry of "get the US invaders out of Iraq" brought many fence sitters toward such groups and ten laters morphed into a major player in the Arab Spring.

Furthermore, much of the Arab Spring recieved a great deal of support from the US. This support largely went against old US allies in favor of the people. Why would the US turn its back on strong long time allies? Because The US desperately needed a PR face lift in the region to counter the bad image (and terrorist motivating image) the Iraq war created. Without the "win the people" mindset that was largely a result of the Iraq war, it is highly concievable the US wouldn't have aided in Libya and would have supported Mubarak.

[Ranger2]

At 12/20/13 11:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I'd actually venture to say that without the US invasion of Iraq, the Arab Spring may have never occurred, and if it did, it likely wouldn't be as strong.

Much of the populist sentiment that fueled the uprisings came from the grassroot Islamic groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood. If the US had not invaded Iraq, it is highly likely these groups wouldn't be as powerful, and definitely wouldn;t be as populist. The rallying cry of "get the US invaders out of Iraq" brought many fence sitters toward such groups and ten laters morphed into a major player in the Arab Spring.

But then why did it take so long for it to occur, and when the United States was withdrawing from Iraq? The major reason the revolts happened was because of economics.
Also, this may explain revolts in Egypt but not Syria or Libya. If this was prompted by anti-US sentiment, how does this explain what happened to Gaddafi and al-Assad?

Furthermore, much of the Arab Spring recieved a great deal of support from the US. This support largely went against old US allies in favor of the people. Why would the US turn its back on strong long time allies? Because The US desperately needed a PR face lift in the region to counter the bad image (and terrorist motivating image) the Iraq war created. Without the "win the people" mindset that was largely a result of the Iraq war, it is highly concievable the US wouldn't have aided in Libya and would have supported Mubarak.

What you say is self-defeating. The Arab Spring was caused by anger against US intervention, but then you say that had we not invaded Iraq we would have helped Mubarak against a rebellion that you just said would not happen.

Still, a very interesting proposal.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/21/13 01:03 AM, Ranger2 wrote: But then why did it take so long for it to occur, and when the United States was withdrawing from Iraq? The major reason the revolts happened was because of economics.
Also, this may explain revolts in Egypt but not Syria or Libya. If this was prompted by anti-US sentiment, how does this explain what happened to Gaddafi and al-Assad?

I'm not saying that the revolts were prompted by anti-US sentiment. Not at all. I'm saying that much of the sentiment was pushed, fomented, and fueled by groups that likely wouldn't have been as powerful were it not for the US' actions that drove people into their ranks.

The dissent has existed in these countries for decades. Yet, with everyone's dissent fractured and split, they woul likely have been swept aside by infighting or the government.

What you say is self-defeating. The Arab Spring was caused by anger against US intervention, but then you say that had we not invaded Iraq we would have helped Mubarak against a rebellion that you just said would not happen.

Like I said above, the causes would still exist. However, the formation of that dissent would likely have been very different and much weaker without groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and such jumping in a garnering high levels of conservative and rural support.

Still, a very interesting proposal.

[Feoric]

At 12/20/13 11:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I'd actually venture to say that without the US invasion of Iraq, the Arab Spring may have never occurred, and if it did, it likely wouldn't be as strong.

The Arab spring started when a fruit vendor self-immolated to protest police brutality. It quickly became immensely more complicated than just that, but US intervention in the Middle East did not play an immediate role in the beginning.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/21/13 07:59 PM, Feoric wrote: The Arab spring started when a fruit vendor self-immolated to protest police brutality. It quickly became immensely more complicated than just that, but US intervention in the Middle East did not play an immediate role in the beginning.

No, but a major part of the support for it came from groups that had swelled in size, popularity, and power largely because of the anti-US sentiment that the Iraq invasion caused.

It is entirely possible that without the Islamic groups backing it up (against secular government) the movement could very well have been DOA or a minor protest that would have died out shortly after it began.

[Feoric]

At 12/21/13 08:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote: No, but a major part of the support for it came from groups that had swelled in size, popularity, and power largely because of the anti-US sentiment that the Iraq invasion caused.

It is entirely possible that without the Islamic groups backing it up (against secular government) the movement could very well have been DOA or a minor protest that would have died out shortly after it began.

I don't agree, because anti-US sentiment was alive and well way before the invasion of Iraq and 9/11 for that matter. The Iraq war certainly didn't help, but it certainly didn't cause it.

[Ranger2]

At 12/21/13 08:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

It is entirely possible that without the Islamic groups backing it up (against secular government) the movement could very well have been DOA or a minor protest that would have died out shortly after it began.

Not entirely. Last spring I wrote a research paper on the beginning of the Arab Spring in Egypt. When everyone was protesting Mubarak in Tahrir Square, the Muslim Brotherhood sent out a memo to its members involved in the riots, saying "if you're going to protest, keep your rhetoric about fighting for Egypt and the Egyptian nationalism. Don't use overtly Islamic imagery or words to make your point."

On an unrelated note but still funnily enough, my paper focused on what Morsi's election meant for relations between the US, Egypt, and Islamist groups in the Middle East. Two weeks after I turned it in, Morsi was ousted, and my paper became obsolete, thankfully after it was graded.

[Warforger]

It's hard to tell. The Muslims Brotherhood has been the most credible, if not the only credible, alternative to the secular dictatorships of the Arab countries, they were in the fight against them the longest and have stood the most steadfast in their face. In fact the first and main enemy of Islamic Fundamentalists are these Socialist dictators like Al-Assad, Saddam Hussein, Mubarak etc.. It's similar to the Communists, they took up opposition to something like say Apartheid in South Africa, the Kouminting in China or the Russian Provisional government in Russia and stayed opposed to it through thick and thin and in the end it paid off tremendously. So the Muslim Brotherhoods rise was decades in the making.

I'd bet that Saddam Hussein would've fallen relatively quickly despite his strong security force, I mean the Communists in the Eastern Bloc fell all the same even if some were more willing to use repression to stay in power particularly Romania.

[Ranger2]

At 12/24/13 03:01 AM, Warforger wrote: It's hard to tell. The Muslims Brotherhood has been the most credible, if not the only credible, alternative to the secular dictatorships of the Arab countries, they were in the fight against them the longest and have stood the most steadfast in their face. In fact the first and main enemy of Islamic Fundamentalists are these Socialist dictators like Al-Assad, Saddam Hussein, Mubarak etc..

You're right, it's hard to tell. The military coup against Morsi was an example of this. The Egyptian military is a modernizing, secularizing force, and while their takeover may be considered a victory against Islamism, (moderate or radical) it delegitimizes Islamism as a democratic force.

The coup does represent the still powerful secular sentiment in Egypt, but it may turn the Islamists more hardline. Morsi was battling hardliners in his own party, as well as people who thought he was too radical. I believe had Morsi retaken power from the military and reinstalled himself as President after the coup, he would have cracked down on the military and any secularizing influences. We'd see a new, radical Morsi.

So while Islamic democrats like Morsi may at first seem the most credible besides the secular socialist dictators we're used to, I think if they were to retake power we'd see a different branch in power. The irony is that the coup, in an attempt to curb what they saw as radical Islamism, may have actually fueled its fire.

[Ranger2]

At 12/25/13 11:11 AM, lapis wrote:

At 12/24/13 11:47 PM, Ranger2 wrote: The Egyptian military is a modernizing, secularizing force,

Atatürk and Nasser were modernising, secularising forces. The Egyptian military on the other hand is a conservative, reactionary force that controls 5-40% of the Egyptian economy and wants to keep it that way.

Nasser came into power through the military. Mubarak ruled under the system Nasser created. The same army that Nasser created is still in power.

The Muslim Brotherhood was starting to pose a threat to their economic interests so they disposed of it. But I don't really expect any liberal reforms from the military; they'll use any credit they have the Salafis to clamp down on dissent first before they anger them by reducing the role of religion (that is, Islam) in the state and Egyptian society.

Are you saying the Salafis are giving credibility to the same military that signed a peace agreement with Israel, helped blockade Gaza, and help the West fight the War on Terror? The military is now clamping down on the Muslim Brotherhood, looks to me like they're trying to reduce the role of religion in Egypt.

A pity too, because Egypt really needs reform (especially birth control) for the country to at least partially get out of the mess it's currently in.

You're confusing secularizing and modernizing with liberal. Hitler was a secularizing and modernizing force. So were Mao and Stalin. Secularization, modernization, and liberalization go together very well, but they are not by any means a package deal.

[Feoric]

At 12/25/13 04:54 PM, lapis wrote: There has not been a serious secularising force in Egypt since Nasser.

Unfortunately this is true. After the coup it was amazing to watch Egyptian secular progressives like Baradei support the military coup and the violent crackdowns and outright murder of their opponents without ever even bothering to try and win either a parliamentary or presidential election, which they would arguably have easily won had Morsi continued to be bad at governing.

[Ranger2]

At 12/25/13 04:54 PM, lapis wrote:

At 12/25/13 04:03 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

Systems may change over the course of several decades. Nasser was clearly a reformer, who pushed through a bunch of reforms like, for example, the nationalisation of the religious endownments (waqf) system in 1952 and the expulsion of clerics from judicial courts in 1955. He brought the scholars of the al-Azhar to their knees, trying to turn their institution into a force of modernisation. Sadat on the other hand used was equally concerned about the left wing of his party and gradually decreased pressure on both the al-Azhar and Islamists to use his new Islamic credentials to attack liberal and leftist opponents. Sadat even amended Egypt's previously secular constitution, which from that moment on stipulated that Sharia was to be the primary source of all legislation. Mubarak and his military have basically continued Sadat's strategy: holding on to power first, and if that means cozying up with political Islam, so be it. There has not been a serious secularising force in Egypt since Nasser.

True, but the military in 2010 didn't have much more to secularize, they just had to keep the status quo. And now the Egyptian military has declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group and will not allow candidates to run.

They backed the coup, and, despite warnings that this would come back to haunt them, they still announced that they would not oppose a military presidential candidate three months ago and vowed their support for Egypt's new (military) constitution only three weeks ago. They definitely can be wooed, and I don't think they have a lot of international ambitions at the moment.

How was Hitler a secularising force? What was there to secularise?

He cut the power of the church in Germany. I'm not using him as an example to say "Hitler was a secularizer, therefore secularization is bad." I'm simply saying that just because a ruler secularizes does not mean he is liberal.

This is at risk of turning into semantics. Can you explain what kind of secularising, modernising reforms you were expecting from the Egyptian military?

I was not expecting any serious reforms, but to restore it to the 2010 status quo. The military was popular and at its peak of power under Mubarak.

[Ranger2]

Lapis, when i say that the military is a modernizing and secularizing force, I don't mean that they had a continuous program since 2010 to secularize and modernize Egypt further. They weren't aiming for a religion-free state. They were rather focusing on preserving power and the status quo. Few leaders do what they do for an agenda or belief that is bigger than themselves. The military does what they do because they believe it will preserve their power.

[AJ]

At 12/25/13 04:03 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Are you saying the Salafis are giving credibility to the same military that signed a peace agreement with Israel, helped blockade Gaza, and help the West fight the War on Terror? The military is now clamping down on the Muslim Brotherhood, looks to me like they're trying to reduce the role of religion in Egypt.

That's not the case. They're trying to reduce dissent, not Islamism. al-Nour realized they had been presented a golden opportunity when the military began to censor and impose its will to try and erase the Muslim Brotherhood, because they were the second biggest Islamist party and stood to benefit among people who left the MB because they didn't want to get killed, but still wanted Islamist representation. They have played a huge role in shaping Egypt's new constitution, and have openly worked with the government since almost directly after the coup. And Sisi gets to say he's totally not repressing anyone because look at all the Salafis the government is allowing to have its say. An opportunist match made in heaven.

[AJ]

And as a side note, it's inaccurate to frame Saddam and Assad as "fellow Ba'athists." The similarities between the two end at the name. Iraq and Syria have a long history of trying to subvert each others will, especially during the Iran/Iraq war, when Syria helped fund Iran.