« Caption Contest Extension | Main | What If we hadn't invaded Iraq? -- Take Two »

What if we hadn't invaded Iraq? -- Take One

So, the anti-war movement says the war in Iraq was wrong, that we never should have invaded. OK, fine. Let's see how that plays out:

"OK, people, we've pretty much destroyed the Taliban in Afghanistan. We've conquered most of the country, killed thousands of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the survivors are hiding in caves or running for the borders. That's one trouble spot off the table. But there are a lot of other ones around the world, and if we pay too much attention to one, the others could blindside us. What are we gonna do about Iraq?"

"Mr. President, I think it's pretty clear that sanctions and carefully measured responses against Saddam aren't working. He's got the "cheat and retreat" game down to a science, and he's playing it like a master. We've assembled a ton of evidence he's been using the 'Oil For Food' program to bribe officials of other nations to get them to ease up on the sanctions, and we have strong indicators he's still developing WMDs. Further, we have clear proof that Saddam is supporting terrorism and terrorist groups around the world. We can't tie him into 9/11 directly, but we have evidence connecting him with Al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, and several other groups."

"So, you're saying we ought to invade Iraq next? Just take what Congress said in '98 and put some muscle behind it?"

"That's one idea, sir. But I think it might be a good time to steal an idea from 'The Godfather' -- 'keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.'"

"I'm not following you."

"Saddam has a lot of information we could use, and we have something he desperately wants -- the lifting of the sanctions. I think we ought to explore the possibilities.

And with that, Bush secretly sent an envoy to Iraq, with the following deal: if Saddam starts giving us information on the terrorists he's been helping, we'll agree to an easing of the UN sanctions. It's a simple quid pro quo: the more and better intelligence he gives us, the more sanctions we agree to let ease. And if he'd like to take an active role in the fight, all the better.

We make it clear that we won't be compromising on the inspections issues, but do give assurances that as long as he's helping us, he needn't fear facing an invasion from Iran alone -- one of his biggest worries. At the first signs of trouble, we'll let the Iranians know that any such moves will be dealt with most harshly.

Saddam, seeing the opportunities, agrees. He gives us some low-level information at first, testing the waters. In response, we lower some objections to easing some of the sanctions. And things progress from there, with Saddam giving us more and more important information, and the US relenting on more and more sanctions.

But then, as is inevitable, word starts leaking out that we have a "deal" with Saddam. And the Democrats, seeing the upcoming presidential campaign, leap on to the rumors with both feet.

Ted Kennedy takes to the floor of the Senate. "Nearly twenty years ago, a previous Republican administration also cut a deal with our enemies in the Middle East behind Congress' back, in direct violation of existing laws, and paid the price for it. Now this administration is deliberately ignoring the Iraqi Freedom Act of 1998, which called for the removal of Saddam Hussein, and instead is supporting his continued reign of terror over the Iraqi people."

Meanwhile, Saddam is seeing other possibilities. He fabricates evidence tying some of his rivals and potential enemies with Al Qaeda, and has them arrested and executed as "terrorists."

Congress sees this, and Democrats immediately call for investigations into the whole "deal" with Saddam. They point to his long history of supporting terrorism, and accuse the Bush administration of resurrecting the old Cold War policy of coddling dictators who play ball with us, under the old "he's an SOB, but he's our SOB" standard that led us to back some truly repugnant tyrants who were at least nominally anti-communist. Talk of impeachment starts circulating. The Bush advisors who pushed the Saddam initiative resign, but face

Meanwhile, at the UN, the revelation that the US has been agreeing to the easing of sanctions for its own reasons causes a bit of a stir. The reactionary anti-American factions want a full investigation to properly embarass the US, while those who also took Saddam's bribes want the whole matter to just quietly go away.

And as we head into the 2004 presidential campaign, we find President Bush gravely weakened, the Democrats with a serious issue on their side, and the whole nation generally disgusted with the whole war on terror.

While the US government wrestles itself over whether or not it should have tried to co-opt Saddam, Al Qaeda manages to regroup and starts planning its next move. And other terrorists see how the US has turned its war into a tar-baby that we can't seem to extricate ourselves from, and we find ourselves flailing helplessly.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What if we hadn't invaded Iraq? -- Take One:

» Doug Ross @ Journal linked with Honoring Heroes on Indepedence Day

» WILLisms.com linked with Iraq: What Might Have Been.

Comments (5)

We are in trouble: a tough ... (Below threshold)
Mike Dallos:

We are in trouble: a tough row to hoe!

Heh. Does anyone doubt that... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Heh. Does anyone doubt that this is exactly the sort of thing that would happen if Bush had done this? The Dems and the 'human rights' organizations would be all over Bush for doing this. Just like they are now. Hmm.. It's almost like they would be attacking him no matter what he did...

There is, of course, anothe... (Below threshold)

There is, of course, another option that could've unfolded.

There is the "if we close our eyes and ignore the problem it will go away" routine. Any guesses as to how that would've turned out?

Ya know, I'm an open minded... (Below threshold)

Ya know, I'm an open minded fellow. I thought this was interesting, with a couple truly brutal flaws in the assumptions, but still amusing as a thought exercise. Right up until there was the inevitable tie in between Saddam and 9/11.

Repeat after me. There was no connection. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. The terrorism connection is a red herring thrown out by the Right to justify their actions in Iraq. There is nothing but the hairest-thin evidence that Iraq had anything, ever, at all to do with international terrorism, and even the current activities therein have only the thinnest ties to Al Queda. What's happening in Iraq now is the result of a poorly executed destruction of an existing government, coupled with absolutely no plan about what to do afterwards. Bush is flailing now as he has been all along, and if you listen -really- closely, he cannot say the sentence 'Iraq' without saying 'Al Queda' or '9/11'. Neither of which are any grounds whatsoever for the absolute disaster in foreign relations our activities in the middle east has become.

dbs, Saddam had nothing to ... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

dbs, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. He had plenty of connections with Al Qaeda, but he was NOT involved with 9/11. I attribute this to operational security -- much like Germany had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor, and probably didn't know about that in advance, either. But there was a history there, and while surprised by it, Saddam wasn't exactly appalled by it. In fact, he had murals painted of it with himself shown looking on approvingly.

But the war on terror didn't start on September 11 -- that's just when we finally started taking it seriously. Much like World War II didn't start on December 7, 1941 -- it started in 1939 in Europe, and even earlier in Asia, when Japan invaded China.

Don't mistake the first real attempts by the US to strike back as the "beginning." This war started a long time ago -- depending on who you ask, in 1993, 1979, 1972, 1968, or 1947, just to name a few candidates.







Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy