The most likely outcome would have been that Saddam, the master pragmatist (by MidEast standards), would have continued his policy of covertly supporting radicals as a way of paying “protection money”, i.e. “I’ll give you what you want as long as you leave me alone”. Which means that he would have been bestowing largesse upon the likes of al-Qaeda, et al., with money gleaned from his under-the-table deals with supposedly “unfriendly” governments (like France and Germany), and if he did develop WMDs, would make same available to the radicals (as long as they didn’t use them on him) in return for their continued acceptance of his rule in Iraq. He would have proclaimed himself a pious Muslim, devoted to Sharia, just as in the 1970s and 80′s he proclaimed himself a “moderate” and attacked Iran, because the bread would be buttered on the opposite side after 9/11. In short, he would have morphed from being a “Muslim moderate” like Sadat in Egypt into being a radicalized terrorist paymaster and “Islamist loyalist”, like Qaddafi in Libya. The objective being to stay in power, no matter what. Call in “Realpolitik, MidEast Style”.
It’s really that simple. And I didn’t need seventeen paragraphs to say it, either.
clear ether
eon
