Will Kürlich Kerl
Banned
What happens if the United States gets rid of Saddam Hussain during the Gulf War in 1991?
WI: US topples Saddam in Gulf War
- Thread starter Will Kürlich Kerl
- Start date
It depends on the nature of the topple.
One scenario is what we saw in the 2003 Iraq War - completed removal of the regime. That is not the only scenario available.
Another scenario would be that US informs Iraq that its conditions for peace includes 1) removal of Saddam Hussein and turning him over for war crimes (perhaps other as well like Chemical Ali Hassan Al-Majid), 2) internal reforms to end the persecution of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs, 3) obedience to international norms (de facto pro-Western orientation), 4) allow immediate international inspections and removal of all WMDs and Iraqi capability to make them, and 5) continue their anti-Iran foreign policy. If these demands were met, the US would accept some other member of the ruling party to be left in charge of Iraq. While most likely there'd be some kind of group rule in Baghdad, the nominal head of state or government could be Tariq Aziz or some other Ba'athist (like Salah Aboud Mahmoud or Wafiq Al-Samarrai) that were Saddam allies, but not as sadistic or risk prone.
Most likely, it'd be the second scenario or some variant. Bush I had pledged to the Arab powers that he would not end Iraq's role as an anti-Iranian buffer. If he was to remove Saddam, he'd need to preserve something of the old structure in place to be able to keep any semblance of his promises.
One scenario is what we saw in the 2003 Iraq War - completed removal of the regime. That is not the only scenario available.
Another scenario would be that US informs Iraq that its conditions for peace includes 1) removal of Saddam Hussein and turning him over for war crimes (perhaps other as well like Chemical Ali Hassan Al-Majid), 2) internal reforms to end the persecution of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs, 3) obedience to international norms (de facto pro-Western orientation), 4) allow immediate international inspections and removal of all WMDs and Iraqi capability to make them, and 5) continue their anti-Iran foreign policy. If these demands were met, the US would accept some other member of the ruling party to be left in charge of Iraq. While most likely there'd be some kind of group rule in Baghdad, the nominal head of state or government could be Tariq Aziz or some other Ba'athist (like Salah Aboud Mahmoud or Wafiq Al-Samarrai) that were Saddam allies, but not as sadistic or risk prone.
Most likely, it'd be the second scenario or some variant. Bush I had pledged to the Arab powers that he would not end Iraq's role as an anti-Iranian buffer. If he was to remove Saddam, he'd need to preserve something of the old structure in place to be able to keep any semblance of his promises.
Not all that likely. Bush Sr. was more or less just focused on getting them out of Kuwait. He showed little interest in nation building...
Now if we kill him during the bombings, we might see something along the lines of us supporting a new leader over another. But Bush seemed to show very little interest in policing Iraq
Now if we kill him during the bombings, we might see something along the lines of us supporting a new leader over another. But Bush seemed to show very little interest in policing Iraq
A good POD for this may be to push forward the 1991 uprisings against Saddam by a few months, that way it would make it look more like it's an open and shut case of help the group you like most overthrow Saddam and give them as much aid in building the new government. Hopefully something that starts as an internal rebellion with international aid would manage to be more stable than the purely US constructed administration.
I was under the impression that the UN resolutions would not allow for an invasion of Iraq or an attempt on Saddam's life.
Would the coalition not have fallen apart if regime change had been attempted in 1991?
Even if Saddam should have been killed by a real accident, the coalition might not have survived.
If Saddam had been 'bumped off' in 1991 and we assume the coalition had fallen apart in the middle of the war (or shortly after), the prospects for peace might look very different.
Could and would US be prepared to run Iraq?
Would Saudi (and Syria) allow this to happen?
How would the revolt in Southern Iraq go?
Iran?
Ivan
Would the coalition not have fallen apart if regime change had been attempted in 1991?
Even if Saddam should have been killed by a real accident, the coalition might not have survived.
If Saddam had been 'bumped off' in 1991 and we assume the coalition had fallen apart in the middle of the war (or shortly after), the prospects for peace might look very different.
Could and would US be prepared to run Iraq?
Would Saudi (and Syria) allow this to happen?
How would the revolt in Southern Iraq go?
Iran?
Ivan
Driftless
Donor
Would repartition of Iraq along religious/ethnic lines have limited the bloodshed that we've seen in the last several years? (UN resolutions of 1991 wouldn't have allowed that)
* Kurds in the North
* Shiites in the lower Tigris/Euphrates valley from Baghdad to Basra
* Sunni state in the remaining area of current Iraq
Would a subdivided Iraq face increased pressure from their neighbors? Primarily Iran, Turkey, maybe Syria?
Would that eliminate the current civil unrest? Or would that just open up the outlying populations of any of the minority groups to more wide open violence?
* Kurds in the North
* Shiites in the lower Tigris/Euphrates valley from Baghdad to Basra
* Sunni state in the remaining area of current Iraq
Would a subdivided Iraq face increased pressure from their neighbors? Primarily Iran, Turkey, maybe Syria?
Would that eliminate the current civil unrest? Or would that just open up the outlying populations of any of the minority groups to more wide open violence?
deathscompanion1
Banned
Turkey would scream bloody murder at a Kurdish state, so would Syria and to an extent Iran.
Wasn't Saudi Arabia very clear to the US that they did not want and would be very pissed off if Saddam was overthrown? I seem to remember that they wanted him removed from Kuwait and knocked down a peg or two so he couldn't cause trouble again but not overthrown as that risked destabilising the region.
This would not have been allowed by the UN resolutions, and Bush senior (unlike his son) valued the UN, real diplomacy, and the establishment of real coalitions. Plus, I suspect Bush senior as well as his chief advisors (Powell especially) had a good understandng of the can 'o worms they'd be opening if they expanded the war beyond the very limited explict (liberate Kuwait) and implicit (substantially degrade Saddam's overall military capability) goals of Desert Storm. I suspect few on Bush senior's team (except Cheney) fell for the fantasy that Iraq could be "democratized" and made a US ally.
To this day, I consider the entire buildup to and execution of Desert Storm probably the most masterful exercise of US diplomacy since the Korean War
To this day, I consider the entire buildup to and execution of Desert Storm probably the most masterful exercise of US diplomacy since the Korean War
Last edited:
Zoomar: Fully agree.
Bush Sr might not have been the best president ever, but it was a master piece to get the coalition formed and to get it to stay like that for an extended period.
It also shows one additional thing: Nothing really beats international agreements - compromises and adjustments have a tendency to create a better climate.
Bush jr did not exactly achieve this and unfortunately left a slight mess behind.
Should we look at a real accident which will kill off Saddam? Even a car crash is an idea.
Now what?
Ivan
Bush Sr might not have been the best president ever, but it was a master piece to get the coalition formed and to get it to stay like that for an extended period.
It also shows one additional thing: Nothing really beats international agreements - compromises and adjustments have a tendency to create a better climate.
Bush jr did not exactly achieve this and unfortunately left a slight mess behind.
Should we look at a real accident which will kill off Saddam? Even a car crash is an idea.
Now what?
Ivan
Well, it's not completely out of the question that the US might have had killing Saddam one of the unofficial secondary objectives of the bombing campaign in 1990-91.
If that happened, there would no doubt be a power struggle in the Baathist heirarchy and, who knows, a slightly less paranoid and brutal dictator might have risen to the top?
Redhand
Banned
I think the idea of Uday Hussein in charge of a country might be enough to get even the UN to act. Anyone who watches the new FX show Tyrant knows the potential for incompetence and brutality a guy like him would bring to the table.
Qusay on the other hand would probably lead to a stronger grip on power for the Baathists and probably the more quiet and efficient extermination of the Kurds. He also probably wouldn't be half as provocative towards the US as his father was. I still to this day believe that if Saddam wasnt such a blustering dick towards the West (he was the ONLY world leader to praise the 9/11 attacks) he wouldn't have convinced Bush of his guilt.