Should we have kept Saddam Hussein and Gadhafi?

[American Imperial State]

Looking at the serious security issues in the middle east, perhaps the policy of overthrowing brutal dictators is misguided. However evil, one cannot deny that iraq, syria and libya were more stable under their respective dictators.

Certainly saddam might be an exception because of his external aggressions. But imagine if we had never invaded iraq and supported the syrian and libyan regimes.

Perhaps it would have ultimately been better for all parties involved. Saddam would have royally crushed ISIS.

[The Black Forrest]

Are you suggesting you can't give people democracy?

[Farnhamia]

Are you suggesting you can't give people democracy?

Just some people.

[American Imperial State]

Are you suggesting you can't give people democracy?

I'm suggesting that in nations like Iraq with huge sectarian problems (iraq is not a truly unified nation) , it would be preferable to have a strong central power like Saddam than have a power vacuum and sectarian divisions that can then be exploited by evil terrorist groups like ISIS.

And really, are the locals better off under current conditions? I think they are worse. Iraq is not even a fully functional democracy, it's a sectarian kleptocratic regime and borderline failed state that lost half it's army to brutal barbarians wearing black diapers.

[Alyakia]

they kept the country relatively stable, though with the regular flare up of ethnic violence and suppression.

it's not that overthrowing dictators and putting in democracies or your favourite form of government cannot be done, it's just insanely hard and expensive on a scale that pretty much no country is willing to commit to. (e: and brutal as fuck in most cases, see: saddam)

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

Obviously, I mean if the Iraqi madman were still in power today, the Sunni majority wouldn't be angry, as a result they wouldn't support ISIS, any type of ISIS like group will be gased or tortured by the regime preventing them from growing. The only down side is the Kurds would probably be dead since you know... Genocide.

Libya is a different story though...

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

Are you suggesting you can't give people democracy?

Name me a single Middle Eastern country (with a Musim majority population) that became 'democratic' and follows U.N. Human Rights Laws, which became pro-American and didn't once say death to America...

[Saiwania]

Obviously, I mean if the Iraqi madman were still in power today, the Sunni majority wouldn't be angry, as a result they wouldn't support ISIS, any type of ISIS like group will be gassed or tortured by the regime preventing them from growing.

The Shia are the majority in Iraq, so Saddam would have quite a problem if he got into any future confrontations with Iran. The short answer is that yes, Saddam and Gaddafi should've been kept. Even when Iraq was a check against Iran however, Iran still had the upper hand from Iraq having a sizable fifth column that might've defected to Iran at the first opportunity. Saddam being removed was a huge boon to Iran.

[Dahon]

If Iraq truly was as divided as the pundits later said it was when Iraq became a battleground between rival Islamic factions, then its collapse into feuding camps of rage-bitten zealots would've been a matter of when anyway -- all it would've taken is Saddam giving up the ghost in one of his palaces. Sure, there's much more room for one of Saddam's sons or even a trusted general to seize power and grind the country to the dust and dirt much as Saddam had, but that would only be resetting the clock till shit blows up in that successor's face. Ditto for Gadhafi and his, er, weirdness.

So the lesson seems to be this: if you want all the power forever and ever and ever, kiss Kim Jong-un's fat Swiss-educated ass, be the total fucking sadsack dipshit Imperium Sidhicum would be proud of, and be North Korea.

[Dahon]

Are you suggesting you can't give people democracy?

Name me a single Middle Eastern country (with a Musim majority population) that became 'democratic' and follows U.N. Human Rights Laws, which became pro-American and didn't once say death to America...

Jordan.

Meh, close enough.

[Crockerland]

Certainly saddam might be an exception because of his external aggressions. But imagine if we had never invaded iraq and supported the syrian and libyan regimes.

Syria's regime is responsible for innumerable acts of aggression in neighboring Lebanon, such as the murder of Dany Chamoun and his wife and children, and the mass-murder of over 200 surrendered Lebanese soldiers trying to resist occupation.
Syria's regime has supported and continues to support Hezbollah, the antisemitic terrorist organization responsible for desecrating the graves of Shiites in Aytaroun (source) and forcing numerous Lebanese into exile in places such as France, Israel, and Cyprus, such as Antoine Lahad and Etienne Saqr. Anyone who speaks out against Syria-Hezbollah joint atrocities (IE: Rene Mouawad, Rafik Hariri, Ramzi Irani, Bashir Gemayel) tends to die.
source along with a list of atrocities committed directly under the authority of Syria's regime

[Jamzmania]

People seem to forget that Saddam had a propensity towards invading his neighbors and a history of using chemical weapons against his own people. He was not a stabilizing force.

[To Quoc Duc]

Obviously, I mean if the Iraqi madman were still in power today, the Sunni majority wouldn't be angry, as a result they wouldn't support ISIS, any type of ISIS like group will be gassed or tortured by the regime preventing them from growing.

The Shia are the majority in Iraq, so Saddam would have quite a problem if he got into any future confrontations with Iran. The short answer is that yes, Saddam and Gaddafi should've been kept. Even when Iraq was a check against Iran however, Iran still had the upper hand from Iraq having a sizable fifth column that might've defected to Iran at the first opportunity. Saddam being removed was a huge boon to Iran.

Not really, because the majority of Iraqi Shi'a still hate Iran anyway. The SCIRI and Al Da'wa expatriates were largely distrusted by the main Iraqi population, and while during the '91 uprising appeared to show many were holding pictures of Khomeini chanting 'We want Sharia in Iraq', this was actually over played in Western media outlets and relatively confined to areas in which SCIRI agents were able to mobilize people in favor of it. For the most part, Shi'a in Iraq distrust Iran, which is why Marja Sistani rarely gives public sermons despite his widely held reverence at the Hawza: he speaks Arabic with a Persian accent.

One also must understand that in the Middle East, the national army is always revered. So even though the Shi'a hated Saddam, they loved the army. Furthermore, in addition to their view of the army as a heroic institution, the majority rank and file were also composed of Shi'a led by Sunni officers. That's why the Republican Guard was used to crush the uprising and not the regular army. It was also the Shi'a soldiers who fought in the Iran-Iraq war and only grew the Iraqi held hatred of Iran, rather than developing sympathy for them.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

Name me a single Middle Eastern country (with a Musim majority population) that became 'democratic' and follows U.N. Human Rights Laws, which became pro-American and didn't once say death to America...

Jordan.

Meh, close enough.

It was a trick question because there is no Middle Eastern country with a majority Muslim population that follows U.N. Human Rights Laws.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

Obviously, I mean if the Iraqi madman were still in power today, the Sunni majority wouldn't be angry, as a result they wouldn't support ISIS, any type of ISIS like group will be gassed or tortured by the regime preventing them from growing.

The Shia are the majority in Iraq, so Saddam would have quite a problem if he got into any future confrontations with Iran. The short answer is that yes, Saddam and Gaddafi should've been kept. Even when Iraq was a check against Iran however, Iran still had the upper hand from Iraq having a sizable fifth column that might've defected to Iran at the first opportunity. Saddam being removed was a huge boon to Iran.

Wasn't it the Sunnis when he was in power? Or were they just the majority in the West part of the country?

[New Austzeland]

Although they were absolute bastards in their own ways, Daesh likely wouldn't even exist and the region would possibly be more stable today if they were still in power.

[The Islamic Cooperative]

Are you suggesting you can't give people democracy?

“I am not fighting for democracy except for the peoples that want democracy. If they want it, then I am ready to fight until they get it. If they don’t want it, that is none of my business.”
-Woodrow Wilson

[USS Monitor]

Would have been better to mind our own business.

Or at least focus our military interventions on Afghanistan and bin Laden, since they were actually a threat to the US.

[To Quoc Duc]

Although they were absolute bastards in their own ways, Daesh likely wouldn't even exist and the region would possibly be more stable today if they were still in power.

Daesh was created in 1999 as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad or 'Group of Monotheism and Jihad' in Jordan. After the invasion of Iraq it moved into Iraq and eventually became 'Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia' or AQM. It then became the Islamic State of Iraq based out of Ramadi from 2005, and eventually the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in 2013. Granted this simplifies a lot of internal schisms and political maneuvering, as well as some inbetween movements such as the Mujahideen Shura Council, but for the layman this timeline is accurate, if slightly incomplete.

[USS Monitor]

Although they were absolute bastards in their own ways, Daesh likely wouldn't even exist and the region would possibly be more stable today if they were still in power.

I can't believe I agree with a Ted Cruz supporter.

[Saiwania]

Wasn't it the Sunnis when he was in power? Or were they just the majority in the West part of the country?

Iraq has a roughly three way geographic split where it is Kurds to the north, Sunnis to the west, and Shia to the south and east. Relations between the central Iraqi government and Iran are now so great that the Shia portion could very well decide to want to formally be annexed by Iran. But Iran doesn't just yet want to gain jurisdiction over a large area outside of its current national borders.

[The Islamic Cooperative]

Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, all these nations are artificial constructs forced upon the populace of the region by a British and French diplomat without the consent of the people of the region. And no, the Arab Revolution didn't seek the independence of these nations, what the British promised to the Arabs is their own empire.

Anything that is forced upon is bound to collapse, sooner or later.

[Alyakia]

People seem to forget that Saddam had a propensity towards invading his neighbors and a history of using chemical weapons against his own people. He was not a stabilizing force.

we supported him against iran and helped him get those chemical weapons. he may still have attacked but would have been fucked without us.
kuwait really was fucking him over, and we accidentally made it sound like we were ok with him invading them. had we put our foot down the invasion would have most likely not occurred.

[To Quoc Duc]

Wasn't it the Sunnis when he was in power? Or were they just the majority in the West part of the country?

Iraq has a roughly three way geographic split where it is Kurds to the north, Sunnis to the west, and Shia to the south and east. Relations between the central Iraqi government and Iran are now so great that the Shia portion could very well decide to want to formally be annexed by Iran. But Iran doesn't just yet want to gain jurisdiction over a large area outside of its current national borders.

There is no evidence to suggest that whatsoever. I've been hearing people argue this for two years now, and not one has given any evidence which passes empirical study. Myself as a trained academic of the region, and who studied Arabic at the Qasid, does not find this to be a valid assessment of the political situation. While the two may be close (the Da'wa owing Iran for its patronage and allowing them sanctuary in Iran after they were banned by the Ba'athist regime) this is politically motivated and not owing to any interest in forming a political union.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

If we hadn't muddled the process, no. Both were terrible people and instability magicians.