The Daily Demarche
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Iraq "What If"- UPDATED AGAIN!


Thanks for all the hits and comments (read the two posts below to see all the great feedback)- in addition to the comments the following bloggers and readers have sent us feedback (all un-edited- Dr. D). Keep it coming and spread the word. Be sure to let the "we are wrong" crowd know too! All the new material appears above the original contributions.

NEW ON 8 Jan- Fresh Bilge joins the fun with what he terms "The Dolphin Effect", starting with the question: "What if Janet Reno had not persecuted a little boy in South Florida?" A thought provoking and unique take on the exercise.

American Future speculates on the "what if" question- would we have nailed OBL without Iraq?

The Glittering Eye takes it a step further and looks at applying all that force to Afghanistan and al Qaeda. In addition, he's added this piece from frequent commenter Peter Rice.

Total Information Awareness has posted a very interesting, wide ranging, "What if" piece!

A Guy in Pajamas adds his take on our exercise- and even manages to include Michael Moore!

Toni of The View From Tonka has sent us the following:

What if we had never invaded Iraq? What would the situation there, in the ME and in America be like today?

So, Saddam is still in power which means there is a haven, training center and funding for Islamic terrorists. I think SD would now have nuclear power since I believe the Pakistani Dr who sold his soul would be harboring himself in Iraq supporting SD. What does this mean?

Aside from some of the obvious effects of SD being in power and having nuclear capability the continuing atrocities would have racked up at least another 50,000 deaths in Iraq. SD will have shot down more than one US aircraft in the no-fly zone which resulted in the UN removing the no-fly zone and all sanctions from Iraq. The UN will continue to make money off of Iraq even though the Oil for Food program has been ended. Now the UN will receive outright payments from SD for their continued cooperation in the guise of payment for "humanitarian"relief.

Once SD got the sanctions and no-fly zone out of his way let the games begin. First, SD builds his air capability with help from Russia and France. Once that is situated (lets say it's now the end of 2004) he's ready to go. First off, he takes down Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. I'm guessing he uses chemical and nuclear warfare. Within a month he attacks Israel with a nuclear blast along with military assistance from Syria. Coordinating with the attack on Israel by SD, Osama leads an attack using suicide bombers in the US where simultaneous attacks occur in a number of Power plant facilities around the country. Only one of these bombers is successful in devastation but that's all it takes. So, the US is preoccupied with it's own havoc.

I know I've cut to the basics here because there are numerous scenarios and details to play out with a plenitude of dependencies interacting. I do believe by the US invading Iraq, George W. Bush has averted a world catastrophe which even in my jaded eyes is difficult to fathom. The world has a problem with Islam contrary to the mantra heard which says it is the religion of peace. I do believe it is the religion of pieces which is a rather coarse play on words. Until Muslims are willing to admit the deficiency with their religion Islamic Fascism will not be abated. I fully expect there to be an attack on the US in the South Asia tsunami disaster relief efforts. It will be maybe an attack on a relief base or maybe on one of our ships or helicopters.

"Craig" writes:
Don't have a blog, but-
- Status quo was not peace! To suggest otherwise is an enormous and deliberate mis-characterization by the anti-war movement.
- Operation Northern/Southern Watch were ongoing. Testing of its limits was continuous.
- USS Cole was subjected to a combat operation (a.k.a. terrorist attack) while on a deployment in support of Iraqi sanctions policy. A rational evaluation of the motive of this attack would suggest Al-Queda/Iraq military cooperation towards the removal of those sanctions.
- The sanctions regime was under continuous justification challenge. The termination of sanctions would have removed all incentives for Iraq to comply with terms of 1991 cease fire agreement. Even some Democrats may consider a nuclear Iraq under Saddam and a nuclear Iran not to be in our national interest.
- Loss of credibility. I realize none of this is really new. A pet peeve of mine has been the use of the term "terrorism" to describe what are actually combat operations directed against us. I did not at the time, nor later approve of the attempt to use such euphemisms to deny the fact that we were and are at war.

From Peter Rice:

Some random thoughts with little editing. My bottom line is that almost nothing would be better, and the elite news media would HATE GW Bush just as much if we had not invaded Iraq.
Of course Libya would still be working on nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein would still be in power and by January 2005 the UN controls on Iraq would have ended, either by UN action or by UN inaction. The UK & USA air patrols would have ended, in part because of the UN would not extend sanctions on Iraq and in part because of political pressure by Iraq on Turkey, Kuwait, and the various Persian/Arab Gulf countries that permitted the RAF and US Air Force operate from their airfields, not to continue to permit the RAF and USAF to operate.

Saddam Hussein would continue to finance various anti-USA efforts, just as he did the various ANSWER antiwar demonstrations of early 2003. But he would be spending more money on such efforts and likely achieving greater results. He might even have provided funds to the Democratic Party, as the People's Liberation Army provided to Bill Clinton's reelection efforts.

Saddam Hussein would be very close to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and likely would be permitting them to operate in Iraq.

As far as Afghanistan, it would be judged by all of the elites and by almost all Democrats in the US Congress to be a TOTAL COMPLETE failure. Yes, they would say that the USA installed a puppet, but they continue to kill Americans (150 KILLED so FAR) and they continue to grow opium, and the USA has not yet captured Osama bin Laden, therefore it is a TOTAL COMPETE FAILURE. They would say that we MUST withdrawal now, that all is lost. We best leave before we are kicked out and that al Qaeda is not the threat that we say it is. And we ONLY went into Afghanistan because we wanted to seize the rights to put in an oil pipeline across Afghanistan to enrich the Bush family (Moore's 9/11 film at work).

Concerning Afghanistan, please remember by late November of 2001 (just weeks before our side took Kabul) that the elite media and the Democrats were saying that ALL was LOST and that we ought to withdrawal quickly because we could NOT win due to:
1. Afghan winter
2. Ramadan
3. The Arab Street
4. The Red Army lost in Afghanistan and the East India Company Army (some called it the British Army, but it was not) lost twice, once VERY badly.

THEREFORE, all hope was lost as of late November 2001 and we must withdraw, and then two weeks later it was over and our side was in Kabul. Almost everyone who says, I supported our actions in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq, did NOT support our actions in Afghanistan; but MANY had been so shocked by the 9/11 attacks that they had not had the emotional strength nor the time to mount an opposition to "Bush's War" in Afghanistan.

The NATO troops in Afghanistan would have been targeted by terrorists attacks and most of the countries would have withdrawal their forces from Afghanistan. As it is today, the troops of most NATO countries are only in the Kabul area and contribute little to fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban, but at least they are in Kabul.

The bottom line value of our invading Iraq was to send the message that GW Bush and Tony Blair were willing to invade countries, so that the various countries that had been really really really difficult for us, became somewhat less difficult, be it N. Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, Syria, Iran, Cuba, etc. These countries knew that we would do more than just talk. France and Germany likely would have been far more difficult and US troops might have been forced to leave Germany because the bribes would have been FLOWING from Saddam to Berlin and Paris. We would not have learned of the Oil for bribes program of the UN and K. Anon (and his son) apparently being crooks.

And the wood choppers would be working each day ripping apart the bodies of those who displeased Saddam, but that would be totally OK to the elite media of the world.


<< Home

dé·marche 1) A course of action; a maneuver. 2) A diplomatic representation or protest 3) A statement or protest addressed by citizens to public authorities.


Proud to be counted among the members of the State Department Republican Underground, we are Foreign Service Officers and Specialists (and a few expats) who tend to be conservative. We believe that America is being misrepresented abroad by our mass media, and that the same mass media is in turn failing to report what the world thinks about us, and why. This site is dedicated to combing the news around the world, providing the stories and giving our interpretation, or "spin" if you prefer. Send me a good news story: dr.demarche AT

A blog by members of the State Department Republican Underground- conservative Foreign Service Officers serving overseas commenting on foreign policy and global reactions to America.
Send us mail: Dr.Demarche (or) Smiley.George AT

Recent Posts

Iraq "What If"- UPDATED AGAIN!


Non-Blog Links

10 Myths About Islam
American Future Resources
Ask Imam
Secularizing Islam
Women's Forum Against Fundamentalism in Iran

November 2004 / December 2004 / January 2005 / February 2005 / March 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / April 2008 /

Link to us:

Blogroll Me!
Listed on Blogwise Weblog Commenting and Trackback by Powered by Blogger

Under Politics