What if we'd left Saddam in power?

US troops would still have been in Saudi Arabia? As I recall, US troops were asked to leave right after 9/11. It was Bush who arranged for them to just sort of move over into Iraq with the Saudi's blessings.

It's difficult to make a big case for Saddam being a huge threat when no MWDs were found there. Clinton mainly used the Iraq regime as a means for boosting his popularity in the midst of his bimbo eruptions, with the eager help of the MSM. Which is why, I think, the moonbats are so sore. Bush stole Clinton's ploy, leveraged by the previous MSM support and expanded it into a successful re-election bid.

The jury is still out on if this adventure will eventually turn out in our favor, but right now we're 100s of billions in the hole and still bleeding. Both blood and dollars.

A more interesting question is, what would have happened if after 911 the U.S. took all the $billions spent on the Iraq invasion and occupation and instead spent it and the last five years on energy independence. That includes wiping it's hands of the House of Saud.

Asia depends on middle-eastern oil too. It's said that on the shortest sea route from the Persian Gulf to Japan, on a clear day, the captain of a tanker can see the funnel smoke from the tanker ahead and the one behind. China is rapidly switching to an petroleum-based culture.

Would Japan or China now be considering taking the place of US troops in Saudi Arabia, or even invading Iraq? Imagine for a moment what an occupation by either country would look like.....

Rand

What a lot of nose pickers forget today is that there was a resolution presented in the U.N. by France and Russia to deconstruct the no fly zones in 2002/03. Saddam was looking to completely escape all penalties related to the gulf war and can anyone doubt what would have happened in the north and south of the country once the air protection was withdrawn?

Anybody remember that the only way we ever learned about the A Q Khan nuke ring was because Qadaffi turned states evidence after we took down Saddam?

Iran, NK, and Libya might have had working nukes by now...

Mr. K, Mr. Strong,

What would have had to happen in the past five years to convince you that our liberation of Iraq was "worth it"?

Mr. K, I infer that you wanted to see stockpiles of weaponized chemical munitions, operating bioweapon laboratories, or nuclear test sites. Is this correct?

Do you really believe that we would have found such stuff, given:

1. The time Saddam had to prepare for the coalition's arrival, plus

2. The aid he received from Russian generals, PLUS

3. His intricate knowledge of how the inspectors did their work, PLUS

4. Having had 1998-2002 to hide / dismantle whatever he had, PLUS

5. The continued existence of the knowledge and experience of his scientists

We found what was possible to find:

1. Scientists who had worked on the projects.

2. Records of the projects, including deception measures the scientists used to assure Saddam that they were making progress.

3. Dual use materials and facilities

4. "Sloshers" (chemical artillery rounds)

5. Stockpiles of chemical drums, buried and camoflaged, and near Iraqi artillery units, that tested "hot" for the same properties as nerve agents -- and they wound up being insecticide (which is itself a nerve agent).

Mr. Strong,

There is no way that a 100 billion / year would have bought us useful energy independence. The R&D infrastructure isn't large enough to absorb that kind of money efficiently.

Rather, It would have bought a whole lot of political payola. Specific examples include farm subsidies and the barriers to sugar / ethanol imports.

Neither China, Europe, or Japan would have invaded Saddam to secure oil supplies. Combined, they lack the basic capacity for such a military action . Indeed, only the US has that capacity.

Rather, they would have cut a deal to secure their oil supplies. China in particular will do business with any regime, no matter how noxious, to secure raw materials. That deal would have freed Saddam to do whatever he wanted, including continued funding of terrorist infrastructure. He would have become untouchable, and would have had China, Russia, Japan, Europe and the Arab states protecting him.

Saddam would have continued his gathering and successful efforts to end the sanctions and secure his freedom of action. He would have successfully isolated the US from its allies.

The money and blood we have spent has secured for us a far different consequence.

"A more interesting question is, what would have happened if after 911 the U.S. took all the $billions spent on the Iraq invasion and occupation and instead spent it and the last five years on energy independence."
Posted by Roger Strong at June 30, 2007 03:11 PM

So your saying the best response after a direct attack on sovereign U.S. soil would be to find energy independence? I don't think I could think of a more lame response to thousands killed in cold blood to just suddenly say, "Well fine, were gonna drive electric cars now, take that you Islamic fanatics" , yea that would show them....

It's ironic that some of the same people who want us to do a Manhattan Project; which was a weapons application of an emerging technology, not only have been against its military use, but are adamant to expanson of civilian application. They
are also the ones who seemingly fault us for not invading the NorthWest Frontier of Pakistan, possibly provoking a jihadist coup in a nuclear
state, or I suppose invading Saudi Arabia, a task
that would have 10 times harder than our Iraq endeavour.

>> The R&D infrastructure isn't large enough to
>> absorb that kind of money efficiently.

There's plenty of room for more R&D on portable power (cars and trucks). In the mean time there are plenty of non-R&D steps you can take. Like getting rid of dependence on oil for *non* portable power. Build a bunch more reactors and convert homes from oil to electric heat. Convert factories to electric power.

Even before building more mass transit, accept the idea of running it at a heavy loss, using cheaper fares to attract more riders. The US interstate system is one of the modern wonders of the world. You don't pay fares to use it, so it most certainly "runs at a loss" - but the country as a whole has profited from its existence. Apply that concept to mass transit - within cities and between cities. Convert rail lines to electric power - other countries have plenty of experience with that. Mass transit systems are easier to run without oil than automobiles.

It's not about getting rid of cars or taking oil usage down to zero - you just want to cut usage enough to stop using foreign oil.

>> So your saying the best response after a
>> direct attack on sovereign U.S. soil would be
>> to find energy independence?

My mistake in wording: I would have still removed the Taliban/Al Qaeda from power in Afghanistan. And that didn't take too big an effort on the US's part, and they have a decent coalition of other countries to help.

But the 9/11 terrorists didn't come from Iraq, and the planning didn't happen there. In fact the US invasion of Iraq is probably a lot closer to what Osama & Co. wanted, than what they didn't want.

>> What would have had to happen in the past five
>> years to convince you that our liberation of Iraq
>> was "worth it"?

I'm not saying that it wasn't "worth it" - it's better than maintaining the Saddam/UN farce as it was before then invasion.

But walking away from the Islamic states (after stomping the Taliban / Al Qaeda in Afghanistan) over several years, I *suspect* the US would be better off.

My point was that the other oil-consuming countries would be worse off. One or of them would have to take over the US's pre-war role protecting up the House of Saud - which would make them Al Qaeda's number one enemy. To make things worse, they'd have to take over the US role of keeping ground troops at KKMC etc. to protect against Iraq.

On the other hand, with the US no longer protecting the House of Saud, could Japan or China NOT afford to come to the rescue? Especially with the possibility that the other might do so?

Imagine the anti-US headlines if Europe or Asia had to step into the pre-war US role.

It's not about getting rid of cars or taking oil usage down to zero - you just want to cut usage enough to stop using foreign oil.

It doesn't do us any good to "stop using foreign oil." Repeat after me. Oil is fungible.

If we don't buy it from them (and we actually don't buy all that much from them), someone else will. The terrorists would continue to be funded. There are two choices. Make oil worthless, or take it away from the people who want to use the revenues to kill and convert us. The latter is a lot more viable option than the former. Removing Saddam was a first step.

spent it and the last five years on energy independence.

Energy independence from Saudi Arabia how? Not buying light sweet crude? Nope, we don't buy it. We refine heavy crude, so we deal with other countries.

Mac you need to read these figures from the DoE/EIA that identifies all imports and this page (also from the DoE/EIA) that lists the top 15 countries of origin.

It's also as least as likely Saddam would have just
died of a heart attack, been in a car accident,
got cancer, etc...

Maybe the Iranians would have invaded?

given we are talking about hypotheticals,
there are lots of hypotheticals out there

A non-hypothetical:

Saddam dies = Uday and Qusay ascend, with grandson next in line.

> If we don't buy it from them (and we actually
> don't buy all that much from them), someone
> else will.

Agreed; I don't deny this. (Oil proved to be not so fungible during the 1973 oil embargo, but things are different now.)

My point is that some consider the Islamists' war against the US to be merely a tactic in it's war against the Saudi leadership and against western influence. At the time they objected to the "infidels" occupying Saudi Arabia. Suppose the US walked away from Saudi Arabia - no more buying oil, no more weapons sales, no more troops at KKMC etc. to protect against Saddam, and a propaganda campaign with the message, "We're outta here - if you still find too much western influence, take it up with France/Japan/_____".

Another country will likely step in to fill the US's pre-Iraq-invasion role, if only it keep it's oil supply secure. That country becomes the Islamists' number one enemy - more so when they're forced to react to whatever stunts Iraq (under Saddam) or Iran pull.