"would have brought"? He or rather BAATH regime (which was larger thing than personal rule of a dictator) DID BRING such reforms. That is why Iraqi population is one of the best educated in the region and that is why women were free to pursue professional careeers etc ...
The new government at best will preserve some of the westernizing reforms and very likely will make the Islamic law the supreme standard.
"the fate of every other secular leaders in the area, like the Shah of Iran, Sadat in Egypt, the King of Jordan, Kaddaffi, the head of Syria, the government of Turkey?"
Secular governments of Turkey, Libya and Syria are still in power.
Iran is a more complicated case. The whole mess started in 1953 when Mossadeq - the pro-American, secular leader of Iran with popular democratic support in his country tried to channel part of the oil profits to benefit his nation.
It was not liked in UK and US and shah was forcefuly imposed. Only then Iranians started gradual process of islamisation seeing in the mosque the way to secure the national independence. My prediction is that Shia Iran left to its own devices, (even with the nuclear power) will evolve to pro-Western position and will return to the natural equilibrium resembling Mossadeq aspirations.
You are a joke. You are spouting the same line we heard about Afghanistan--under the Russians. How wonderful everyone had it. All the rights they enjoyed.
You're not fooling anybody. Saddam EMBRACED Islam. He DID AWAY with all of the "on paper" rights that the women and others in Iraq had (never in fact) enjoyed.
Women could vote? Run for office? LOL. You really believe that actually happened in any meaningful fashion?
What any of this has to do with the subject of this thread is beyond me. But apparently the word went out, and the idea is to talk about anything besides Cindy Sheehan's outrageous remarks.