Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill Clinton: If not for the U.S. invasion, none of what’s in Iraq right now would be happening
Hotair ^ | 05/26/2014 | AllahPundit

Posted on 06/26/2014 5:24:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

Via Mediaite, an easy lay-up here for a guy who (a) warned the world about Saddam’s WMD threat more than once as president, (b) cautiously declined to take a firm position against the war at the time, and (c) is of course married to someone who cast a vote in the Senate to invade.

But never mind that. This is an interesting counterfactual: What would have happened to Iraq during the Arab Spring and Syrian uprising if Saddam had endured? Clinton implicitly assumes that ISIS advancing on Baghdad is the worst possible outcome of the past 10 years, which is the smart play politically when your wife’s desperate to appease the anti-war left en route to her party’s nomination. Is it true, though? Assume that Egyptians had toppled Mubarak in 2011 with Saddam watching from Baghdad. At a minimum, he would have cracked down hard on Iraq’s Shiites to suppress an insurrection before it caught fire, and if you know anything about the 1991 Shiite uprising, you know how much blood a Saddam “crackdown” could draw. Meanwhile, maybe the Sunnis across the border in Syria, inspired by Mubarak’s ouster, still would have revolted against Assad. What would have been Saddam’s move then? He could have come to Assad’s rescue, one Baathist defending another from a rebellion in the name of protecting autocracy, but his relations with Assad were poor so he may well have stood pat — in which case Iran might have moved to defend Assad, fearing that the Sunnis in Syria would overrun the Shiite regime just as Saddam was crushing the Shiites in Iraq.

That would have put Iranian forces on two of Iraq’s borders, an encirclement Saddam couldn’t tolerate. In which case, maybe he’d throw in with Syria’s Sunnis in the name of bleeding Iran. He wasn’t above cooperating with terrorists when it served his interests; in fact, one of his chief henchmen is rumored to be working with ISIS right now against Maliki. Would a long proxy war in Syria, with Saddam and Sunni jihadis on one side and Iran, Hezbollah, and Assad on the other, have been better or worse for the region? The virtue of it, such as it is, is that it would have kept a gigantic mess of degenerates fighting with each other instead of thinking about America. What the death toll would have looked like, though, heaven only knows. That’s the thing about the Middle East — there’s really no such thing as a good outcome. That’s the point Clinton should have made vis-a-vis the hubris of the U.S. invasion, not raising a counterfactual that relies on Saddam Hussein as some sort of moderating force.

Exit question: How would Saddam have reacted over the past 10 years to his archenemies in Iran bringing thousands of new uranium centrifuges online?

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO



TOPICS: Egypt; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Russia; Syria; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2016election; alqaeda; billclinton; clintoon; dhimmitude; egypt; election2016; hillary; invasion; iran; iraq; isis; jihad; jordan; kurdistan; lebanon; obama; randpaul; randpaultruthfile; ronpaul; ronpaultruthfile; rop; russia; slickwilly; syria; turkey; warofchoice; waronterror; x42
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 last
To: SeekAndFind

It is pointless to hypothetically analyze this. We had two no fly zones in affect over Iraq. In the North, to protect the Kurds. And in the south to protect the Shia. Would terrorists have been able to gain a hold in Iraq when Saddam was more or less sequestered around Baghdad ? Eventually yes. Would terrorists have proliferated faster without ground troops in Iraq in these Saddam-lite regions ? Probably yes. Bill Clinton is ignoring the no fly zones because it does not help his crooked miserable wife.


41 posted on 06/26/2014 9:54:41 PM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'
Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by "anti-government activists" is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists]
[Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]

42 posted on 12/14/2014 3:00:02 AM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/ _____________________ Celebrate the Polls, Ignore the Trolls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Everybody forgets that Saddam supported the Sunni jihadists who tried to overthrow Hafez Assad in the early 80’s, so what makes people think he wouldn’t support the current generation of Sunni jihadists in Syria. Also, Saddam would have brutally cracked down on the Arab Spring like Qaddafi and Assad and liberals would have clamored for a humanitarian intervention in Iraq, similar to Libya and Syria.


43 posted on 12/18/2014 10:03:52 AM PST by Revenge of Sith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson