Posted on 04/26/2007 5:25:27 PM PDT by noname247
Long before we invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power, anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of Iraqi history understood that, to prevent the country's disintegration as a political entity, a powerful leader was needed to keep the ethnically and religiously divided populace at bay.
Saddam's brutal dictatorship was merely the latest in a long and undistinguished line of autocracies to have imposed their will on this nation of sullen malcontents, starting with the Hashemite monarchy, which relied heavily on Britain to sustain its rule, and the succession of military dictators that established the template of brutal political repression that Saddam was only too happy to imitate.
Had Saddam not developed a penchant for invading his neighbours and threatening vital oil supplies, it is likely the West would have continued to tolerate his domestic barbarity. Even when it became obvious that Saddam's behaviour could no longer be tolerated, both Britain and America recognised he would need to be replaced by another strongman, the only difference being that the new tyrant would be our tyrant, a Mubarak rather than a Nasser.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
This is naive. While stability of any kind would be nice, Saddam, like his model and idol, Stalin, had to buy it by killing millions and installing a state system of control using socialism.
That just wouldn’t work today, now that some of the people have a glimpse of freedom. Why do the think Iran is so uptight and risking so much to destroy things?
Plus both the Shi-ite and Sunni sides are well-armed now, unlike under Saddam.
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.