Joseph Quesnel is a policy commentator in Nova Scotia.Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper was right to urge Canada to join the so-called “coalition of the willing” in bringing down the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq back in 2003.Regime change in Iraq was better for maintaining a regional balance of power favouring longer term peace and stability.Of course, it is quite difficult to talk of peace and stability now amidst the war in Gaza and Israel’s multi-front war against Iranian proxies. However, let’s discuss the region without dictator Saddam Hussein.One cannot prove counterfactuals, but we can imagine scenarios that would be more and less likely.The problem with the Iraqi invasion from the outset was making it dependent on Iraq possessing banned weapons of mass destruction. However, we can understand why the Bush inner circle made that their rationale: it would have posed more of an immediate threat to the United States and convinced Americans politically of the need for an invasion. It is much more complicated to argue regime change in Iraq would advance the balance of power in the Middle East on the side of peace and stability. That reasoning is less immediate and — let’s face it — much harder to sell politically.Hussein’s repeated refusal to give international inspectors unfettered access to its weapons programs justified the American-led coalition’s actions. This was to ensure that Iraq was compliant with international sanctions that arose from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.The international community would have likely never mustered political will to enforce resolutions forcing Iraq to comply. We cannot trust the United Nations. The clear antagonistic double standard against the State of Israel shows it is an ineffectual and hopelessly compromised organization. There is evidence permanent Security Council members benefitted from the ‘oil for food’ sanctions regime placed in Iraq. This compromised its objectivity vis-à-vis Saddam’s Iraq.In 2002, Prime Minister Jean Chretien stated Canada would only join the coalition if the UN passed a resolution authorizing force.The CIA’s Iraq Survey Group spent more than two years inspecting weapons sites. Although it did not find weapons stockpiles, evidence from the dictator himself and his closest aides revealed he most certainly would have re-started his nuclear and chemical weapons programs in earnest post-sanctions.This shows Hussein engaged in bad faith from the start and was biding his time.Hussein stated he wished to “offset the Iranian threat.” All his aides understood this as an ambition to acquire nuclear weapons. When it comes to the seriousness of his nuclear plans, we have always known Saddam meant business. Israel was concerned enough they tried to prevent him from building nuclear facilities until finally in 1981 they sent F-16s to destroy Iraq’s nuclear reactor. Iraq was a lot more advanced in its nuclear weapons program, closer to where Iran is now.A nuclear-armed Iraq would have likely annexed Kuwait and perhaps even acquired Iranian territory. Why? Because Iraq would possess a credible regional nuclear deterrent. This deterrent would have ensured Saddam’s regime would survive. The United States — and any other country — would have been very hesitant to act against a nuclear power.The world faces an Iranian genocidal regime on the brink of acquiring nuclear capability. Imagine if we had two with Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Moving away from the balance of power for a moment, let’s look at Iraq itself. After the invasion, Iraq encountered destabilizing civil war, the ISIS insurgency, and continual struggles against Iranian influence. Iraq lost so much in civilian lives during the invasion and after. We should never gloss over the loss of civilian lives. However, what conflicts and regime changes have not known so much loss? Hussain Abdul-Hussain — a Lebanese-Iraqi writer and research fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies — spent time in Iraq post-invasion and said the coalition — in comparing it with what the allies did in Germany and Japan after the Second World War — did not create the equivalent of a Germany in Iraq. Instead, he said they created a country closer to an Egypt or a Turkey. This is still much better for regional and global security. Iraq has experienced genuine multiparty elections involving peaceful transfer of power and it has a flourishing free press. Unlike other Arab states, Iraq grants meaningful autonomy to its Kurdish minority. Is Iraq a democratic oasis? Certainly not. Corruption and authoritarian abuse of power continues. However, the worst outcome has not come: Iraq becoming an Iranian proxy state. Iraq is a Shia Muslim state like Iran but has largely maintained its independence. Unfortunately, more than a dozen Iraqi political parties have ties to Iran and Iranian-funded paramilitaries exist in Iraq. Iraq has much work to do to remove Iran from its politics.On balance, the invasion and its aftermath have created a unique semi-democratic state that is better for regional and global security. If Iraq continues down a liberal democratic path, it could provide a model for the entire Middle East. It is regrettable Canada was not involved in this just project from the start. Joseph Quesnel is a policy commentator in Nova Scotia.
Joseph Quesnel is a policy commentator in Nova Scotia.Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper was right to urge Canada to join the so-called “coalition of the willing” in bringing down the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq back in 2003.Regime change in Iraq was better for maintaining a regional balance of power favouring longer term peace and stability.Of course, it is quite difficult to talk of peace and stability now amidst the war in Gaza and Israel’s multi-front war against Iranian proxies. However, let’s discuss the region without dictator Saddam Hussein.One cannot prove counterfactuals, but we can imagine scenarios that would be more and less likely.The problem with the Iraqi invasion from the outset was making it dependent on Iraq possessing banned weapons of mass destruction. However, we can understand why the Bush inner circle made that their rationale: it would have posed more of an immediate threat to the United States and convinced Americans politically of the need for an invasion. It is much more complicated to argue regime change in Iraq would advance the balance of power in the Middle East on the side of peace and stability. That reasoning is less immediate and — let’s face it — much harder to sell politically.Hussein’s repeated refusal to give international inspectors unfettered access to its weapons programs justified the American-led coalition’s actions. This was to ensure that Iraq was compliant with international sanctions that arose from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.The international community would have likely never mustered political will to enforce resolutions forcing Iraq to comply. We cannot trust the United Nations. The clear antagonistic double standard against the State of Israel shows it is an ineffectual and hopelessly compromised organization. There is evidence permanent Security Council members benefitted from the ‘oil for food’ sanctions regime placed in Iraq. This compromised its objectivity vis-à-vis Saddam’s Iraq.In 2002, Prime Minister Jean Chretien stated Canada would only join the coalition if the UN passed a resolution authorizing force.The CIA’s Iraq Survey Group spent more than two years inspecting weapons sites. Although it did not find weapons stockpiles, evidence from the dictator himself and his closest aides revealed he most certainly would have re-started his nuclear and chemical weapons programs in earnest post-sanctions.This shows Hussein engaged in bad faith from the start and was biding his time.Hussein stated he wished to “offset the Iranian threat.” All his aides understood this as an ambition to acquire nuclear weapons. When it comes to the seriousness of his nuclear plans, we have always known Saddam meant business. Israel was concerned enough they tried to prevent him from building nuclear facilities until finally in 1981 they sent F-16s to destroy Iraq’s nuclear reactor. Iraq was a lot more advanced in its nuclear weapons program, closer to where Iran is now.A nuclear-armed Iraq would have likely annexed Kuwait and perhaps even acquired Iranian territory. Why? Because Iraq would possess a credible regional nuclear deterrent. This deterrent would have ensured Saddam’s regime would survive. The United States — and any other country — would have been very hesitant to act against a nuclear power.The world faces an Iranian genocidal regime on the brink of acquiring nuclear capability. Imagine if we had two with Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Moving away from the balance of power for a moment, let’s look at Iraq itself. After the invasion, Iraq encountered destabilizing civil war, the ISIS insurgency, and continual struggles against Iranian influence. Iraq lost so much in civilian lives during the invasion and after. We should never gloss over the loss of civilian lives. However, what conflicts and regime changes have not known so much loss? Hussain Abdul-Hussain — a Lebanese-Iraqi writer and research fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies — spent time in Iraq post-invasion and said the coalition — in comparing it with what the allies did in Germany and Japan after the Second World War — did not create the equivalent of a Germany in Iraq. Instead, he said they created a country closer to an Egypt or a Turkey. This is still much better for regional and global security. Iraq has experienced genuine multiparty elections involving peaceful transfer of power and it has a flourishing free press. Unlike other Arab states, Iraq grants meaningful autonomy to its Kurdish minority. Is Iraq a democratic oasis? Certainly not. Corruption and authoritarian abuse of power continues. However, the worst outcome has not come: Iraq becoming an Iranian proxy state. Iraq is a Shia Muslim state like Iran but has largely maintained its independence. Unfortunately, more than a dozen Iraqi political parties have ties to Iran and Iranian-funded paramilitaries exist in Iraq. Iraq has much work to do to remove Iran from its politics.On balance, the invasion and its aftermath have created a unique semi-democratic state that is better for regional and global security. If Iraq continues down a liberal democratic path, it could provide a model for the entire Middle East. It is regrettable Canada was not involved in this just project from the start. Joseph Quesnel is a policy commentator in Nova Scotia.
