Saddam may have gone into exile for $1bn

[Pannonian]

Removing Saddam wasn't the hard part. Setting up a new, functioning government is. As I believe someone else mentioned, if Saddam had suddenly abandoned the country there's no reason to think there would have been outbreaks of peace and democracy across the country anymore than there were when we removed him forcibly.

The social and civil infrastructure would have been left in place. Bremer has been strongly criticised for dissolving the Iraqi army and state, directly leading to the mess that exists now. Without the exuberance and authority of winning a war, that option wouldn't have been open in the first place. Do you think that was a particularly wise move on Bremer's part?

[Xiahou]

The social and civil infrastructure would have been left in place. Bremer has been strongly criticised for dissolving the Iraqi army and state, directly leading to the mess that exists now. Without the exuberance and authority of winning a war, that option wouldn't have been open in the first place.

The infrastructure was largely in place after the invasion as well. It was the massive looting and subsequent suicide bombings/saboteurs that destroyed it. If the military had remained in power, without significant foreign troops present, who knows what would have happened? A new, Saddam-like dictator rising from the ranks? Ethnic cleansing? In-fighting?

Do you think that was a particularly wise move on Bremer's part?

I always thought our complete disbandment of the Iraqi military was a questionable decision. I think it would've been better to keep them paid and sitting happily (hopefully) on their bases rather than unemployed and joining a growing insurgency.

[Lemur]

I always thought our complete disbandment of the Iraqi military was a questionable decision. I think it would've been better to keep them paid and sitting happily (hopefully) on their bases rather than unemployed and joining a growing insurgency.

The policy was not to keep them in their barracks, but to use them for public works. Would have been interesting to see how that would have played out.

Here's a good background video about Bermer and the decision to disband the Iraqi army.

[Pannonian]

The infrastructure was largely in place after the invasion as well. It was the massive looting and subsequent suicide bombings/saboteurs that destroyed it.

Erm, I was talking about social and civil infrastructure. That means society, government, etc. Human resources, not material resources. Material damage can always be repaired relatively easily, as long as the social conditions are there to allow it. That was proved by the repairwork the Iraqis did after the 1st Gulf War, when there was a fair bit of physical damage, but they managed to patch things up fairly quickly because the human resources were there. Compare with the systematic dismantling of the human resources aspect this time round, with the aim of creating a blank slate for the neocons to play out their socio-economic fantasies on.

If the military had remained in power, without significant foreign troops present, who knows what would have happened? A new, Saddam-like dictator rising from the ranks? Ethnic cleansing? In-fighting?

You could have asked us for advice, when we would have told you that it's always better to have someone to deal with, rather than an anarchy where no-one knows who's in charge.

I always thought our complete disbandment of the Iraqi military was a questionable decision. I think it would've been better to keep them paid and sitting happily (hopefully) on their bases rather than unemployed and joining a growing insurgency.

You're still thinking of the insurgency as the most important aspect of the Iraq disaster. It's not.