MiddleEastStabilityArguments

Will removing Saddam bring more or less stabililty to the middle east and world? Or will it further exacerbate islamic / western hostility?

Blair was taken to task for this by a committee in the UK government. He assured them that a war against Iraq would not increase arab resentment.

It was then pointed out that the main motivation of Al-Queda was the removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia. Remember the US has not humiliated Arabia in war, is not "occupying" it. Yet, the majority of al-Queda funding comes from there, the majority of September 11th attackers come from there. How the hell does anyone know how humiliated Iraqis are going to react?

There are plenty of bad scenarios that can come out of a war :

• Saddam launching a scorched earth policy of destroying oil fields in Iraq, potentially unleashing a WMD on US troops, Israel, Kuwait or Saudi.

• Large numbers of Iraqi refugees entering Saudi and fermenting popular revolution which brings down the house of Saud.

• Saddam taken out, but Iraq remains impossible to subdue, massive US military presence required there for decades. Occupying forces find themselves subject to daily waves of suicide bombers, and are caught in a downward spiral of repressing the local population and popular resistance. Regular suicide bombings against US / Anglophone / Israeli interests make islamic world (from middle east to Indonesia) a no go-area for "western" tourists / business.

• Tension between US occupied Iraq and Iran. War breaks out, thousands more killed.

• Anti US sentiment brings islamic hardliners into power in Pakistan, increasing tension and war between Pakistan and India. Potential nuclear conflict.

Remember none of these scenarios is the US's "fault", if it was it would be dealt with as a moral argument. Here it's just a pragmatic question, assuming we don't want these outcomes, and a war on Iraq makes them more likely than say a long term containment / diplomatic solution, then they are reasons to be against the war.