Ciao!

If US and Iraq got into a war, and Saddam were brought down (surely this time since it's been argued that he should have been removed after the Gulf war), wouldn't there be a power vacuum? Are there a lot of parties who want to fill the spot?

There are currently talks between various exiled Iraqi opposition leaders trying to put together a new government (much like in Afghanistan). Also, the Dept of Defense has been preparing plans for military occupation and even military governorship (much like in postwar Germany or Japan) to fill the gap while Iraq is rebuilt. I think the US is doing everything it can to avoid creating a power vacuum.

To the anonymous post that "wars are not 'won'". They posted anonymously, so I deleted it. Please don't post as anonymous; if you want to respond to my weblog, at least give a real name.

However ... the statement that "wars are not 'won'" is too simplistic a statement. What do you mean by that? Certainly all wars offer death, destruction, and suffering. So yes, war is bad. Is that all you were trying to say? If so, I agree. War is a bad thing. It'd be wonderful is wars didn't happen.

Nevertheless, it's too obvious that some wars are clearly "won" by one side or another (regardless of how we feel about "war" in abstract). Nazi Germany clearly didn't win the Second World War. Carthage certainly didn't win the Third Punic War. It's also clear that Iraq didn't win the Gulf War. Whatever your political opinion about the issue, no one can deny that Iraq didn't win that war. It lost; it was defeated.

The only reason I mentioned that in my post (please read it carefully anonymous poster) was that Hussein's statements insisting that Iraq "won" the Gulf War is clearly not true. Yes, perhaps no one "won" the war. But certainly, Iraq did not.