would sadam have fallen like mubarak?

the frequently excellent Charlotte Gore with a unique take on every bloggers current fave - the middle east / north africa uprisings; 

"the necessity of Invasion to bring down Saddam Hussain, for example, provokes a certain bitter feeling of irony. If we’d waited ten years, would the Iraqi people have brought him down themselves? Would they have done it peacefully, without the needless deaths and the ruin of critical infrastructure?
These are the sorts of questions that the West should be asking itself now – what future does ‘liberal intervention’ have in a world where people can – and do – bring down their own Dictators?"

just imagine that eh? some figures we might have saved on the Iraq war revealed with a few seconds on google are  £2000 per second!  £1bn per year! $5tn overall! it costs the US $4681 per household; $1721 per person and $341.4 million per day! (btw as i frequently bang on - this is only possible with the cognitive dissonance of the state. noone seems to think that they will pay this price. if we lived in free market libertopia and a financier approached you with an amazing oil exploration investment opportunity that would cost you $5tn you would tell em to fuck off even if you could find enough people to share that 5tn with to bring it anywhere near $4681 and in either case the returns do not come anywhere close to even recouping the $5tn expense. its only worth it if you can externalise costs and internalise profits - the state has developed this racket par excellence) 
even my tight fisted preoccupation with money cannot ignore the loss of human life that could have been avoided on every side if we had simply kept our beak out of it and IF (admittedly a gigantic and hindsight-ical IF) this sweep of uprisings had successfully taken hold in Iraq. (if states had make monetary restitution of the subjective value a family would place on the loss of their loved one's life then this $5tn figure would require new -illion words to be invented)

But perhaps this further adds to the overwhelming argument that Iraq1 and 2 were not ‘liberal interventions’. effort number 1 made feck all positive difference to the iraqis or the kurds that we were promised it was all about. fuck up number 2 finished what daddy started but seems highly dubious as to its humanitarian liberal motivations. 

what the trillion dollar, laser guided cheyney/rumsfeld haliburton corporate imperialism failed to bring to the iraqis, the egyptians managed with twitter. the neocon interventionists promised it was all about enduring freedom and yet failed to achieve that even with the most overwhelming resources of history. perhaps this failure can be more easily understood if we take the obvious view that US hawks were not trying to spread liberal democracy. look at it empirically as jesus molyneux tells us - there is no liberal democracy or stable security but there is oil extraction and lucrative contracts galore - follow the money.

we should be able to recognise this sort of corporate profiteering expedition with losses externalised onto a state military - we invented it! If the corporate megaliths of the US state, intertwined as they are with the apparatus of coercive power to the point of indiscernibility, arent comparable to the good ole East India Company and British South Africa Company then perhaps bush snr's New World Order doctrine really is all kittens and puppies, democratic peace theory and humanitarian intervention.