"An interesting view point Kevin, but hardly objective."

Well, I'm with Amos in thinking that "objective" isn't a relevant word in this context - I gave the link to the article because I thin it is interesting. It also feels plausible, but we'll have to wait and see.

................

And Teribus, I know the reports have played up the idea that finding Saddam was all down to clever detective work by the troops on the ground. I'm sceptical about that actually being the case, that's all, and that isn't in any way to disparage the people who were doing it. The most remarkable thing is that they didn't chuck a grenade down the hole, and that to me is a strong hint that they knew he was down there.

I'm not making assumptions about a Strong Man taking over, just that that is very much a possibility in the light of what has happened in the past, and there are undoubtedly people who would like it to happen (including those who might see themselves as that Strong Man).

As for the question whether there was any CIA involvement in the second coup, that's not the kind of thing we can possibly know about -but there definitely was in the first coup, which was an essential stage in the rise of Saddam.

The point is, we're just speculating on the outside. Whatever the truth is, it is always a fair estimate that there are some important things being concealed from us by our rulers. That's just how it is, and always has been.