20 years after the War- how is Iraq doing today?

[TheReckoning]

For those of you who are more knowledgeable than me, how is Iraq today? Is it a democracy? Is it safe? Is it prosperous?

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/RichardJSpencer/status/1637831801942028294?s=20

[HillGoose]

helluva lot better than it was under Saddam the demon!

[CumbrianLefty]

Not well enough to justify the 2003 war.

(amongst other things, there is a high chance Iraq would end up in a similar place today without it)

[Silent Hunter]

Apparently slowly improving over the last few years.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Not well enough to justify the 2003 war.

(amongst other things, there is a high chance Iraq would end up in a similar place today without it)

I'm against the war but let's not play make-believe.  Saddam would be in his mid-80s today, but even if he were dead, Qusay Hussein would be president today, and in his mid-50s.  Hussein's sons were just as bloodthirsty as him and totally unfit to rule.  And they would almost certainly have kept the same ruling party, personnel, and infrastructure that Saddam set up.  Saddam himself wasn't the sole problem -- many of the top Ba'ath politicians, Republican Guard leaders, and Iraqi Army leaders joined insurgent groups, and eventually ISIS, after the fall of Saddam's government.

This is of course assuming Saddam doesn't start another war with his neighbors.

[Coldstream]

Not well enough to justify the 2003 war.

(amongst other things, there is a high chance Iraq would end up in a similar place today without it)

It is insane and or dishonest to claim that Saddam Hussein would have fallen when Bashar Al Assad (who looks like a hippy next to Saddam) clung on. Oppose it or don’t, but don’t pretend this is true.

[Silent Hunter]

It is insane and or dishonest to claim that Saddam Hussein would have fallen when Bashar Al Assad (who looks like a hippy next to Saddam) clung on. Oppose it or don’t, but don’t pretend this is true.

Syria wasn't subject to anything like the sanctions pre-2003 Iraq was, mind.

[Logical]

Not well enough to justify the 2003 war.

(amongst other things, there is a high chance Iraq would end up in a similar place today without it)

It is insane and or dishonest to claim that Saddam Hussein would have fallen when Bashar Al Assad (who looks like a hippy next to Saddam) clung on. Oppose it or don’t, but don’t pretend this is true.

Assad was close to being toppled until the Iranians and Russians stepped in.

[Coldstream]

Not well enough to justify the 2003 war.

(amongst other things, there is a high chance Iraq would end up in a similar place today without it)

It is insane and or dishonest to claim that Saddam Hussein would have fallen when Bashar Al Assad (who looks like a hippy next to Saddam) clung on. Oppose it or don’t, but don’t pretend this is true.

Assad was close to being toppled until the Iranians and Russians stepped in.

He wasn’t that close, and who’s to say Russia wouldn’t have helped Saddam if it came to it? Assuming at uprising could even happen when the Iraqi Baathist’s were so much better/more experienced at keeping control than the Syrian branch.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Not well enough to justify the 2003 war.

(amongst other things, there is a high chance Iraq would end up in a similar place today without it)

It is insane and or dishonest to claim that Saddam Hussein would have fallen when Bashar Al Assad (who looks like a hippy next to Saddam) clung on. Oppose it or don’t, but don’t pretend this is true.

Assad’s regime is a shell of its former self, is more beholden to Iran and Russia than ever, and doesn’t even control all of Syria.  

And Russia did have a chance to help Saddam when it “came to it”—between 9/11 and the US-led invasion. Why didn’t they?

[Logical]

Not well enough to justify the 2003 war.

(amongst other things, there is a high chance Iraq would end up in a similar place today without it)

It is insane and or dishonest to claim that Saddam Hussein would have fallen when Bashar Al Assad (who looks like a hippy next to Saddam) clung on. Oppose it or don’t, but don’t pretend this is true.

Assad’s regime is a shell of its former self, is more beholden to Iran and Russia than ever, and doesn’t even control all of Syria.  

And Russia did have a chance to help Saddam when it “came to it”—between 9/11 and the US-led invasion. Why didn’t they?

They were kinda busy fighting the Chechens and their economy was a dumpster fire.

[MATTROSE94]

Not well enough to justify the 2003 war.

(amongst other things, there is a high chance Iraq would end up in a similar place today without it)

It is insane and or dishonest to claim that Saddam Hussein would have fallen when Bashar Al Assad (who looks like a hippy next to Saddam) clung on. Oppose it or don’t, but don’t pretend this is true.

Assad’s regime is a shell of its former self, is more beholden to Iran and Russia than ever, and doesn’t even control all of Syria.  

And Russia did have a chance to help Saddam when it “came to it”—between 9/11 and the US-led invasion. Why didn’t they?

They were kinda busy fighting the Chechens and their economy was a dumpster fire.

Also Putin is strongly pro-Shi’a, so he would have had little to gain in helping a secular Sunni dictator like Saddam Hussein.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

"Iraq is better today than 20 years ago therefore the Iraq War was good" is weird warmonger cope

You can't just write off the hundreds of thousands to millions of people that were killed, wounded or displaced by the war. It's like saying "(West) Germany in 1959 was way better off than in 1939, therefore Hitler starting WW2 was good for Germans"

[GeneralMacArthur]

"Iraq is better today than 20 years ago therefore the Iraq War was good" is weird warmonger cope

You can't just write off the hundreds of thousands to millions of people that were killed, wounded or displaced by the war. It's like saying "(West) Germany in 1959 was way better off than in 1939, therefore Hitler starting WW2 was good for Germans"

Stop and think about this for five seconds please

[Zinneke]

It's like saying "(West) Germany in 1959 was way better off than in 1939, therefore Hitler starting WW2 was good for Germans"

No it isn't.

You can also still oppose the invasion as one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes of all time and also argue that Iraq would have been destabilized with our without the 2003 invasion, in the context of the proxy war between Iran and the Gulf countries, the Arab Spring (i don't believe the neo-con propaganda about "iraqis voting caused the Arab Spring!1!") and a host of other factors.

[Coldstream]

Not well enough to justify the 2003 war.

(amongst other things, there is a high chance Iraq would end up in a similar place today without it)

It is insane and or dishonest to claim that Saddam Hussein would have fallen when Bashar Al Assad (who looks like a hippy next to Saddam) clung on. Oppose it or don’t, but don’t pretend this is true.

Assad’s regime is a shell of its former self, is more beholden to Iran and Russia than ever, and doesn’t even control all of Syria.  

And Russia did have a chance to help Saddam when it “came to it”—between 9/11 and the US-led invasion. Why didn’t they?

Maybe because they didn’t want to get into a direct war with the US? A hard concept to grasp I appreciate.

[Zinneke]

Not well enough to justify the 2003 war.

(amongst other things, there is a high chance Iraq would end up in a similar place today without it)

It is insane and or dishonest to claim that Saddam Hussein would have fallen when Bashar Al Assad (who looks like a hippy next to Saddam) clung on. Oppose it or don’t, but don’t pretend this is true.

Assad’s regime is a shell of its former self, is more beholden to Iran and Russia than ever, and doesn’t even control all of Syria.  

And Russia did have a chance to help Saddam when it “came to it”—between 9/11 and the US-led invasion. Why didn’t they?

Syria has much more strategic significance to Russia than Iraq did at the time. There's nothing of value for Russia to defend, if anything like Iran they probably couldn't believe their luck when the US took out an unreliable customer for them and handed it to the Shia militia backed by Iran. 

It's worth remembering that what seemed to tip the scales for Putin opposing anything the West was proposing in terms of revising the Middle East and beyond : The botched Libyan humanitarian intervention that resulted in mission creep and overreach. The video of Gaddafi's corpse probably incentivized a lot of the ramping up of the backing of despots. Iraq was obviously a precursor to this but around that time Putin's doctrine still wasn't oppose the West in all theaters they intervene in.

[CumbrianLefty]

Assuming that Iraq would simply have stayed as it was for another 20 years but for the war, is in fact far more implausible than *some* sort of fundamental change occurring. Even if Saddam *had* been succeeded by his son(s), they would never have had the same power or authority.

[TheReckoning]

Literally no one has answered any of the questions posed in the OP, lol.