Lawrence Helm wrote: "What would our present world have been like if we had supported Saddam Hussein prior to the First Gulf War?" Realpolitiks is not primarily concerned with supporting this or that despot but rather whether supporting this or that despot will bring about a political reality we can live with. What Saddam had demonstrated was a desire to destabilize the status quo in the Middle East. He had made an attempt to grab oil land from its historical enemy, Iran, that led to a long brutal war that resulted in a stalemate. He made an attempt for more oil land in Kuwait. Clearly Saudi Arabia was next on the list. Was Saddam someone that could be trusted to bring about a status quo conducive to the interests of those who benefited from Middle East oil? Sure, he was a brutal despot, but the important question was his ability to deliver stability and oil. His inability to provide a decisive victory with Iran made him less attractive. Sure he could keep Iran occupied, but if he was controlling the Middle East, he had to be successful. Furthermore, he wasn't terribly effective in making Iraq a stable country. What would the Middle East look like with Saddam in control? Since he wasn't militarily successful, most likely the Middle East would be an ongoing war zone. Since he couldn't provide a stable political regime, the political situation would be chaotic. On the other hand, the Saudis had proven to be effective in maintaining stability in the region and providing oil. Saddam was useful for keeping the Iranians occupied, but from a realpolitik perspective, I don't think he would be an attractive alternative to the Saudis. Sincerely, Phil Enns Yogyakarta, Indonesia ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html