A lot of people see the above question and instantly say “yes”. However, I as an individual tend to be very science-and-atheism headed in that I ask myself about the factors. And there are several factors that lead me to once again doubt the popular narrative of regular society.
Factor 1; Salafi Movement allies of Saddam
Yes, believe it or not Saddam Hussein was actually a state sponsor of Salafi jihadist militias. In particular, he often allied with this group called Ansar al-Islam from their founding in 2001 until the Saddam regime’s collapse in 2003, in which this group Ansar failed to defend Saddam’s regime as they were hired as mercenaries to do.
Also in 1999, there was this other group Jamaat al-Tawhid; who Saddam seemed to be hotly against, according to intel reports from 2006. So in the case of Jamaat, Saddam Hussein was against that faction of the Salafi movement. But in the case of Ansar, he was a consistent state sponsor of that other faction.
So in regards to factor 1; Saddam Hussein was a sort of two-face in regards to the Salafi movement.
Factor 2; U.S. Troop Count In Iraq
During the 2003 retaliation against Saddam for his use of biochemical warfare, American military in Iraq started off at 192,000. Then in 2007 the U.S. troop count in Iraq slightly lowered to 170,000. Four years later the allegedly “full” troop withdrawal lead to there only being 10% as many troops as in 2007, all in or near the U.S. Embassy in Iraq.
This means there was a 175,000 soldier withdrawal. However, this does not mean occupation was the right thing to do. It just means ISIS could have been uprooted before they grew to the 100,000 fighters or 200,000 they have grown to according to them and according to the Kurds, respectively.
Factor 3; America’s Self-Crippling Lack of Coherent Strategy
American troops in Iraq were taught all manner of cultural relativism and brainwashed into thinking it is morally not possible to fight an enemy who fights from within guarded-status buildings, so that ideas like going into such buildings to confront the enemies indoors never cross their minds. U.S. troops died all over Iraq as a result of this cultural relativist garbage. George Bush’s altruist policies of this; and of making the troops focus on nation-building instead of hyper-defensive campaigning; and of forbidding them from doing what ever is required to rid Iraq of Salafi threats to the American People like Jamaat al-Tawhid and Ansar al-Islam; also caused U.S. troops to die all over Iraq.
The right way to fight the Iraq War would have been to have a Sherman-like policy of severely destroying the enemy’s strategic, economic, and psychological capacity for warfare. The Iraq War could have been ended in a month and a half if Iraq War U.S. general Tommy Franks recognized the moral necessity of recycling the policies of Civil War U.S. general William Sherman, and if the then president George Bush had allowed Franks to act on such recognition. But seeing as neither thing happened, and as pacifism grew more popular over time, the result was U.S. troops suffered massive casualties with minimal casualties being suffered by the Salafi movement troops who were deprived of a sponsor as a result of the U.S. deposing the Saddam regime.
In other words, what we are seeing in Iraq are the dangerous consequences of adopting a purist following of the self-sacrificial doctrine known as Just War Doctrine, which basically contradicts theory of self-defense by teaching free societies it is somehow morally wrong to end their attackers’ strategic, economic, and mental capacities for warfare.
Factor 4; Saddam’s Direct Aggressions
Back in 1991 Saddam Hussein was invading Kuwait and had been throwing SCUD missiles at the free-market democracy of Israel since he got into power. And in general, chaos in the region was beneficial to him until 2003 when he got deposed. He was all over the Arab-Israeli War on the side of the initial aggressors, which in that war were and still are the Arab League and its various members. So, in the case of Israel, Saddam was a threat to an honest friend of the American People. And in the case of his state sponsoring of Jamaat and of Ansar mentioned above, and also with his use of biochemical weapons, he was a threat to the human species, including the U.S. population, as well. He even tried to have the 41st president of America murdered.
In this sense, our 43rd president, son of the 41st, was retaliating both for the biochemical weapons and this murder attempt. George Jr. was not the initial aggressor, Saddam was. And no, I am not defending George W. Bush, I wish only to point out the motives for the Iraq War having happened in the first place.
Saddam did not give up his biochemical weapons and yet no biochemical weapons were found? There are numerous possibilities I can name, none of which I think are the right answer:
- Perhaps he had them destroyed
- Maybe he gave them up to some other Arab League member-state that he was legit at peace with
- It’s also possible he may have given them up to the United Nations
Regardless of what Saddam did to stop us from finding the biochemical weapons, it does not change the fact that he was sometimes a state sponsor of Salafi jihadism, or the fact that he tried to assassinate one of our 1990’s presidents, or the fact that he was firing enormous rockets into a the closest nation to a free society in the entire Middle East who happens to be a friend of America with his intent being to murder ethnically Jewish individuals. Granted, our friendship with Israel is wrongly built on foreign aid and not on free trade like it should be built on, but that’s not the topic we’re speaking of.
Verdict: Not A Matter of Whether Saddam Stayed In Place Or Not
No, I do not see ISIS rising to what it is now as a matter of whether Saddam needed to be deposed or to be left in. I see the rise of ISIS as a matter of abysmal, feelings-over-facts approach to the post-Saddam Salafi insurgency. With that said, let us see what my actual verdict is:
ISIS Would Not Exist If We had a Savannah Campaign policy both against Saddam’s regime and against the Iraqi factions of the Salafi movement.
Yes, I know I am singling Factor 3 as the biggest factor. But this is because, according to me; if we had dealt with the Salafi movement by acting on the exact same eagerness, determination, and passion for exerting the Right to Directly Defend ourselves and/or others we’d acted on during the American Civil War and during World War II, then ISIS would not exist. And this I think is consistent with a lot of things that have gone wrong for the advancement of liberty and ‘right’ for the Salafi movement’s goals.
And finally in answer to the titular question, I say No, that the Salafis would have found some other way of replacing Saddam with themselves if we had not gone in. Because think of it this way:
- Saddam regime = thuggish government
- Salafi movement = thuggish imperials
- Thuggish entities have little to no trust in each other as a general rule
- One year one thug has common cause with another, and they are sponsoring each other’s endeavors, and the next year these thugs are violating each other.
- Thugs fundamentally stand alone as tyrannies fundamentally stand alone
- Free societies do not have this kind of trouble making friends with each other just as cops do not have this kind of trouble making friends with each other.
Readers, I am a dude of thinking in facts and with linear reasoning. I have looked into the history behind and of the Iraq War and of Saddam before starting to post about them, but I spent all year every year since this journal started in 2014 with abstaining from speaking of it.
Don’t dismiss what I am saying because of any personal factors about me that have nothing to do with this topic, but also don’t blindly agree with everything I say. I honestly and simply think individually that the reasons for deposing Saddam were all within our national Right of Self-Defense, for the right of self-defense also legally covers defense of another, defense of others, and defense of one or more third persons. And Saddam was definitely initial aggressor against ourselves (with his assassination attempt on our 41st president), he was initial aggressor against another (his scud missile attacks against our friend Israel who we should improve our relations with by giving up our practice of telling them how to defend themselves), he was initial aggressor against others (his poison gas attacks against Iran, Kuwait and the Kurds), he was initial aggressor against nearly 2 million third persons (his murdering and torturing of an average of 200 every day during his 24 year rule). That’s all I am getting across is America and other free societies all have a national Right of Self-Defense and this Right should be treated no differently than the individual Right of Self-Defense. In fact, that’s most of the political purpose of this journal. Thanks all & all,