WI: Arab Spring in Late 80s/Early 90s

Taking a note from the political changes during the end of the Cold War and the years shortly thereafter, what if there were a similar series of major upheavals and political revolts in the Middle East during that period?
 
We're considerably more likely to see a repeat of stuff like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Hama_massacre

Honestly, a lot of what was different with the Arab Spring vs. similar uprisings in the past is that autocrats had a lot more political/diplomatic handicaps surrounding the use of force. The same period where China got away with Tienanmen Square and Russia could fight an all-out war in Chechnya is going to afford them a lot more leeway where violent repression is concerned.
 
Actually, think how much it could help the Bush administration going into 1992 had it made the Iraqi uprisings an issue and lent support. It would have been a flag-waving issue, the US would easily have overcome Saddam, and it would have as much chance of successes and failings as anything that's gone on during the actual Arab Spring. And it wouldn't be like the recent Iraq situation was, where it was the US fighting a conventional occupational war; it'd be the US a thousand miles away, and bombarding from the sea, and then offering support to whoever manages to attain power.
 
Actually, think how much it could help the Bush administration going into 1992 had it made the Iraqi uprisings an issue and lent support. It would have been a flag-waving issue, the US would easily have overcome Saddam, and it would have as much chance of successes and failings as anything that's gone on during the actual Arab Spring. And it wouldn't be like the recent Iraq situation was, where it was the US fighting a conventional occupational war; it'd be the US a thousand miles away, and bombarding from the sea, and then offering support to whoever manages to attain power.

Eh, Bush put too much foreign policy focus into his '92 campaign as it was. Sure, it'd be another accomplishment, but I remember a poll from the time that showed that post-Gulf War the biggest foreign concern for voters was illegal drugs. The hackneyed James Carville quote is hackneyed because it was right on the money, and some pretty photo ops in Baghdad wouldn't fix that.
 
Eh, Bush put too much foreign policy focus into his '92 campaign as it was. Sure, it'd be another accomplishment, but I remember a poll from the time that showed that post-Gulf War the biggest foreign concern for voters was illegal drugs. The hackneyed James Carville quote is hackneyed because it was right on the money, and some pretty photo ops in Baghdad wouldn't fix that.

I meant it'd help if it's an ongoing issue into the '92 election. Certainly the shelf life of something like that is only so long, as the Gulf war proved to the actual '92 election.
 
I meant it'd help if it's an ongoing issue into the '92 election. Certainly the shelf life of something like that is only so long, as the Gulf war proved to the actual '92 election.

I dunno, the only people who could be counted on to vote based on that as opposed to the economy or social issues are probably either:

A. Neoconservatives who would all turn out for HW anyways, especially given the muscular bent of a lot of his campaign advertisement
B. Anti-interventionists who would be turned off by it

If there was a significant number of persuadable voters out there who could be swayed by an extended conflict, then they would probably respond negatively.
 
I heard somewhere that the uprising could have been helped a lot if Iraq had also been forbidden helicopters in the no-fly zones.

If the Arab Spring did happen in the late 80s will the U.S. and Soviets be supporting various sides?
 
Could you be more specific? Because there's a lot of things to work with here just in the '90s alone, such as a successful democratic transition in Algeria providing the example of a peaceful democracy, the Gulf War, the Intifada and Israel-Palestine peace process (which restarted partially due to Saddam talking up Israel's occupation of Palestine as a negotiating point to withdraw from Kuwait), the end of the Lebanese Civil War (which ended partially because Saddam couldn't fight the Gulf War and arm his proxy at the same time), Saddam falling after the Gulf War, and don't forget that after the 1992 sanctions Gaddafi's regime was hanging by a thread even moreso than Saddam's after the Gulf War. So. What's our cutoff date?
 
Probably whoever is in their camp. Rebels in countries where governments are in other camp and vice versa. Think modern Libya and Bahrain.
Think 1980s El Salvador. America under Reagan will see a challenge to Mubarak et al (or Sadat, I guess, before he's assassinated) as an attempt to extend of Soviet hegemony - to be opposed by any and all means... as in OTL Central America (in a policy begun by Carter and continued by his successor. Always good to see Congress reaching across the aisle).
 
Think 1980s El Salvador. America under Reagan will see a challenge to Mubarak et al (or Sadat, I guess, before he's assassinated) as an attempt to extend of Soviet hegemony - to be opposed by any and all means... as in OTL Central America (in a policy begun by Carter and continued by his successor. Always good to see Congress reaching across the aisle).

Yep. Bush called for the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam. He just wanted a military coup, but he got an opportunity for a proper humanitarian intervention. Concerns over Turkey and the Kurds, the prospect of Iranian influence in a Shia-dominated Iraq, and Bush's lack of "the vision thing" all played a part in putting that to rest and letting the possible bad side effects of a post-Gulf War intervention multiply enormously when his son went in. And that was in the '90s, after the Cold War ended!
 
Some argue it did with Algeria's Black Decade/civil war and the Saudi "Islamic Awakening Movement," both of which were anti-regime and run by proto-Islamic Democrats as both petrolstates failed to provide as much as before thanks to the oil crisis of the late 80's.

Often I feel politically/militarily, Syria will end up the next Algeria of the Arab world. A long, bloody civil war which leaves a huge imprint on society, but in which "the State" albeit much more reformed wins in the end, with a large general amnesty program.
 
I dunno, the only people who could be counted on to vote based on that as opposed to the economy or social issues are probably either:

A. Neoconservatives who would all turn out for HW anyways, especially given the muscular bent of a lot of his campaign advertisement
B. Anti-interventionists who would be turned off by it

If there was a significant number of persuadable voters out there who could be swayed by an extended conflict, then they would probably respond negatively.

Isn't the real question in this scenario whether the uprising would work in toppling Saddam and what then, regardless of whether is helps Bush win reelection?
 
Isn't the real question in this scenario whether the uprising would work in toppling Saddam and what then, regardless of whether is helps Bush win reelection?

Yeah, we kind of got sidetracked, didn't we. I don't know for sure how well the uprising would have worked, but my instincts tell me that if the uprising doesn't have proper weapons and Saddam doesn't hold back then he'll win regardless.
 
Often I feel politically/militarily, Syria will end up the next Algeria of the Arab world. A long, bloody civil war which leaves a huge imprint on society, but in which "the State" albeit much more reformed wins in the end, with a large general amnesty program.

Unlikely, considering it's in Israeli (and US) interests to smash it apart as much as possible.
 
Unlikely, considering it's in Israeli (and US) interests to smash it apart as much as possible.

Because they've done so much to smash it apart as much as possible so far, or the past 3-4 decades the anti-American Assads have been there. Assad is a safer more stable non-enemy/non-ally to Israel than either a democratic, Islamist-democratic or jihadist Syria.
 
Because they've done so much to smash it apart as much as possible so far, or the past 3-4 decades the anti-American Assads have been there.

So the weapons being pumped to rebels are..... what?

Assad is a safer more stable non-enemy/non-ally to Israel than either a democratic, Islamist-democratic or jihadist Syria.

But less safe than Syria broken into several entties
 
Well, as it were there were popular uprisings in the late 1980s in both Algeria and (though it tends to be completely forgotten in the West) Sudan, both of which led to brief, abortive democratic awakenings.

If that can somehow be prevented you'd have two Arab (albeit North African) democracies which may provide a powerful influence on neighboring states. Democratic states may provide a refuge for liberal intellectuals and democracy activists, as well as an influence on Egypt and some of the surrounding states.
 
Top