Bush I instead of Bush II removes saddam?

Straha · Dec 11, 2004

And what would have happened had the Gulf War been fought, but at the end of the ground campaign, BUsh had decided to press on to Bagdhad, with the active intention of toppling Saddam's regime from power?

do we see..

Sadam dies fleeing by air to Switzerland - brought down by the Syrian air force. The Arab block of the coalition deserts us like a shot. US logistics collapse and the occupation of Baghdad lasts less than 2 weeks before the US has to retreat across Jordan to Israel to reeestablish its supply lines. The Gulf monarchies are overthorwn by their mullahs and their militaries. Iraq grabs most of southern Iraq and most of the Gulf. Turkey takes Kurdistan and Turkmenistan. Syria takes Baghdad and Egypt takes Jordan and the holy cities. Bush is impeached. The price of oil spikes at $60-65 and then tanks as it did in OTL.

or does someding else happen?

Nicole · Dec 11, 2004

I don't think an overthrow of Saddam in the Gulf War will result in mass revolution in the Arab world.. In fact, it'd probably be like the modern overthrow of Saddam.. the US is bogged down in a seemingly never-ending war against insurgents, it's other allies slowly leave the area, etc... However, becuase the US doesn't seem to not re-elect presidents in wartime, we may have Bush I for two terms...

Dave Howery · Dec 11, 2004

no to most of those. A lot of the Arab nations might abandon the coalition... Syria would not, as her leader hated Saddam immensely. Kuwait would be rather happy as well, and that keeps our supply lines intact. The one issue remaining is US air strength in SA.... which wouldn't be necessary, since we wouldn't be having no fly zones. The gulf monarchies wouldn't be overthrown by zealots because of the loss of Saddam, as the fundamentalists didn't like him anyway. The coalition will staunchly prevent any land areas switching hands.
The biggest problem would be the peace to come... would it go as harshly as our war now, or would we and our allies be able to put something together?

unsunghero · Dec 11, 2004

If Bush I removes Saddam and company, the American occupation would probably be a lot more peaceful than OTL. The Iraqi middle class would not have been emaciated by a decade of UN sanctions, so probably there would be a real cross section of Iraqi society willing to work with the Americans. Maybe the Americans bring back the monarchy as an interim government, then after a year or two there is a scheduled election to decide what kind of government and who will run it. Americans stay in for years afterward, I would bet (at least a decade), for 'peace keeping' purposes.

LordKalvan · Dec 11, 2004

In the 1st Iraqi war, the coalition renounced going up to Baghdad (and toppling Saddam) mainly because they were quite aware that there was no political solution to a post-Saddam Iraq. The Shiites were in open revolt (and, btw, Bush I called to Iraqi people to revolt, and then refused to give them any help, in particular in the east Iraq). The Kurds were again in open revolt; Syria and Turkey were starting to make claims. And the Iran-Iraq war was to fresh to think that Iran would not have taken advantage of the Iraqi chaos.
Today, it's more or less the same (even worse, given a much more militant Moslem extremism). Looks like the father was wiser than the son...

Dave Howery · Dec 11, 2004

OTOH, the first war led to the establishment of no fly zones, which led to US troops/planes being stationed in SA, which gave AQ and other groups a hissy fit about infidels so close to the holy places of Islam.. and a seemingly endless mission for the US. GW1 would have ended even better if the NFZs were not established.

LordKalvan · Dec 12, 2004

Sometimes I wonder what might have happened if Bush I had accepted a partition of Iraq (which might have made a lot of sense):

a Shiite state in the east
Western iraq to Syria
Southern Iraq to Kuwait
a Sunni successor state in Baghdad and the Sunni triangle

Probably Turkey would have raised a fuss, but might be convinced to acquiesce by concessions on the Euphrates water control, and a share of the revenues from Mosul fields. And Russia in 1991 was not in the shape to make a lot of trouble.
Whatever it might happen out of this, it would hardly be worse than what happened OTL. And I'm meaning what happened to Iraqis, in particular.

DMA · Dec 12, 2004

I don't think there'd be any fuss at all. Saddam would be dead & good riddance most people would say, especially the Iraqis.

The UN occupies Iraq within a week or two & the country is peacefully transformed into a democracy. We don't see any of the current business going on & this is despite the fact that it's a UN run operation.

LordKalvan · Dec 12, 2004

DMA said:
I don't think there'd be any fuss at all. Saddam would be dead & good riddance most people would say, especially the Iraqis.

The UN occupies Iraq within a week or two & the country is peacefully transformed into a democracy. We don't see any of the current business going on & this is despite the fact that it's a UN run operation.

The UN would last just a few weeks. As soon as the first bombings start, they will leave the country. Look at what happened OTL, when the kamikaze bombed the UN offices

aktarian · Dec 12, 2004

LordKalvan said:
[*]Western iraq to Syria

As if Israelis would go for it.....

DMA · Dec 12, 2004

LordKalvan said:
The UN would last just a few weeks. As soon as the first bombings start, they will leave the country. Look at what happened OTL, when the kamikaze bombed the UN offices

There wouldn't be any such activity in 1991. Furthermore, then entire world is more or less involved in Desert Storm Plus. It's a completely different story than the current mess

LordKalvan · Dec 12, 2004

aktarian said:
As if Israelis would go for it.....

Why should Israel care? It would be a way to bring Syria into the "system"

LordKalvan · Dec 12, 2004

DMA said:
There wouldn't be any such activity in 1991. Furthermore, then entire world is more or less involved in Desert Storm Plus. It's a completely different story than the current mess

Is it really? The Shiites were in open revolt; the Kurds the same. I would not be so confident that a UN administration would have been capable to deal with all of these issues (including the Iranian meddling in East Iraq)

Leo Caesius · Dec 12, 2004

Partitioning Iraq is easier said than done. For starters, the Arabs in the north are much more similar, culturally and linguistically, to the Syrians than the ones in the south (including Baghdad). Northerners and Baghdadi Christians speak what we call a qultu dialect, whereas the southerners, bedouin, and Baghdadi Muslims speak a gilit dialect. As it happens, though they are outnumbered in the North by the Kurds, who will probably want to have their own state, and would probably not welcome being incorporated into Syria or Turkey.

I've enclosed a map. The eastern part (Shaded grey and tan) is predominantly Arab. The dark area is Sunni and the light area is Shii. These people will probably want to remain together in a rump Mesopotamia (indeed, I can't see how the Sunni triangle could survive otherwise). The northern part is Kurd, Sunni Arab, and Turkoman. The southern/western part (lighter than the rest of the map) is largely uninhabited desert that could probably be given to Saudi without too much of a fuss.

DMA · Dec 12, 2004

LordKalvan said:
Is it really? The Shiites were in open revolt; the Kurds the same. I would not be so confident that a UN administration would have been capable to deal with all of these issues (including the Iranian meddling in East Iraq)

Don't start manufacturing false history. The Shiites & Kurds were in revolt against SADDAM & not the UN! Remove Saddam in 1991 & these two groups will behave themselves for the most part. There might be a few incidents, but the UN will be able to deal with these. Overall there would have been a peaceful transition wherein all Iraqis would be given the opportunity, not only to vote in an open democratic government, but be able to participate in it as well. The current situation in 2004 is a completely different story.

DMA · Dec 12, 2004

Leo Caesius said:
Partitioning Iraq is easier said than done. For starters, the Arabs in the north are much more similar, culturally and linguistically, to the Syrians than the ones in the south (including Baghdad). Northerners and Baghdadi Christians speak what we call a qultu dialect, whereas the southerners, bedouin, and Baghdadi Muslims speak a gilit dialect. As it happens, though they are outnumbered in the North by the Kurds, who will probably want to have their own state, and would probably not welcome being incorporated into Syria or Turkey.

I've enclosed a map. The eastern part (Shaded grey and tan) is predominantly Arab. The dark area is Sunni and the light area is Shii. These people will probably want to remain together in a rump Mesopotamia (indeed, I can't see how the Sunni triangle could survive otherwise). The northern part is Kurd, Sunni Arab, and Turkoman. The southern/western part (lighter than the rest of the map) is largely uninhabited desert that could probably be given to Saudi without too much of a fuss.

An interesting concept, but just one thing Leo. Considering we're all really talking about controlling the oil, why would the Iraqis, even if they divide themselves into some form of federation (which personally I think is the best option), they accept the loss of a large slice of their territory to Saudi Arabia. I'd say leave the current boundaries alone. It'll only cause more problems than it's worth in the future. This whole mess started due to how the Colonial Powers drew up the borders years ago. I'd say we'd only be sowing the seeds for another conflict within 50 years

Leo Caesius · Dec 12, 2004

DMA said:
An interesting concept, but just one thing Leo. Considering we're all really talking about controlling the oil, why would the Iraqis, even if they divide themselves into some form of federation (which personally I think is the best option), they accept the loss of a large slice of their territory to Saudi Arabia. I'd say leave the current boundaries alone. It'll only cause more problems than it's worth in the future. This whole mess started due to how the Colonial Powers drew up the borders years ago. I'd say we'd only be sowing the seeds for another conflict within 50 years

I personally wouldn't suggest carving Iraq up. There's no mandate for it within Iraq (except among the Kurdish separatists, who don't necessarily speak for the Iraqi Kurds) and I really don't think we should be contributing yet another questionable state (or states) to the stellar line-up of Middle Eastern success stories.

That having been said, if Iraq were partitioned, it would probably be partitioned along those lines. The area which I "awarded" to Saudi is full of nothing but sand and bedouin - all of the oil fields, major population centers, and sites of pilgrimage are located in the eastern half of the country.

DMA · Dec 12, 2004

Leo Caesius said:
I personally wouldn't suggest carving Iraq up. There's no mandate for it within Iraq (except among the Kurdish separatists, who don't necessarily speak for the Iraqi Kurds) and I really don't think we should be contributing yet another questionable state (or states) to the stellar line-up of Middle Eastern success stories.

That having been said, if Iraq were partitioned, it would probably be partitioned along those lines. The area which I "awarded" to Saudi is full of nothing but sand and bedouin - all of the oil fields, major population centers, and sites of pilgrimage are located in the eastern half of the country.

Well two things:

1) Why would the Saudis want more sand dunes? &;

2) Why would the Iraqi Administration at the time, regardless of how its constituted, agree to give away a sizeable chunk of their territory to a country that's not necessarily their friend?

To be honest, I can only see future problems if Iraqi territory starts getting cut off & given to another country. Before you know it, Iran will want some as will Turkey - especially if the Kurds get their own independent homeland.

Leo Caesius · Dec 12, 2004

DMA said:
Well two things:

1) Why would the Saudis want more sand dunes? &;

2) Why would the Iraqi Administration at the time, regardless of how its constituted, agree to give away a sizeable chunk of their territory to a country that's not necessarily their friend?

To be honest, I can only see future problems if Iraqi territory starts getting cut off & given to another country. Before you know it, Iran will want some as will Turkey - especially if the Kurds get their own independent homeland.

I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea - but it is an idea that has been floated by Iraq watchers far too often for my tastes. You're right that the neighboring countries do have claims on some of Iraq's territory. Historically, Persia and the Ottoman empire deliberated over the border on numerous occasions. The Kuwaiti royal family, IIRC, has a historic claim to Khuzestan (SW Iran) as well as the region around Basra. A union between Syria and Iraq has been floated at various points throughout history, and of course there are the Kurds.

As for why I'd "award" that area to Saudi as opposed to Syria - this particular region of sand dunes would give the Saudis a border with Syria, which might come in handy for them. They could build a pipeline to the Mediterranean and bypass Jordan (there was a Mosul - Haifa pipeline back in the mandate period, IIRC, but it's now defunct for obvious reasons). This is a good idea, as 88% of the oil produced by the Gulf countries exits through the Persian Gulf, which Iran could shut down in a heartbeat during a war. Also, the bedouin tribes that occupy this area move freely between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, without any consideration for national borders. I'm sure that more than a few of them resent being ruled by sedentary Arabs from Baghdad and would welcome Saudi rule, given that the Saudis are just a bunch of Bedouin themselves.

DMA · Dec 12, 2004

Leo Caesius said:
I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea - but it is an idea that has been floated by Iraq watchers far too often for my tastes. You're right that the neighboring countries do have claims on some of Iraq's territory. Historically, Persia and the Ottoman empire deliberated over the border on numerous occasions. The Kuwaiti royal family, IIRC, has a historic claim to Khuzestan (SW Iran) as well as the region around Basra. A union between Syria and Iraq has been floated at various points throughout history, and of course there are the Kurds.

As for why I'd "award" that area to Saudi as opposed to Syria - this particular region of sand dunes would give the Saudis a border with Syria, which might come in handy for them. They could build a pipeline to the Mediterranean and bypass Jordan (there was a Mosul - Haifa pipeline back in the mandate period, IIRC, but it's now defunct for obvious reasons). Also, the bedouin tribes that occupy this area move freely between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, without any consideration for national borders. I'm sure that more than a few of them resent being ruled by sedentary Arabs from Baghdad and would welcome Saudi rule, given that the Saudis are just a bunch of Bedouin themselves.

Well thanks for saying why the Saudi's would be interested in this arrangement, but I still find it hard to accept that the Iraqi's themselves would go along with the idea. Now there maybe some, I'm sure, who'd go along with the transfer of territory, but when it comes to the crunch I think you'll find for numerous reasons, most Iraqi's will reject the idea.

Of course, in the global scheme of things, the USA &/or the UN might go ahead with the land transfer. If they do I'd expect a war to erupt sometime in the future over the issue long after all the key players in such a decision (in 1991) have left the scene. It'll be something akin to Kuwait all over again albeit a direct confrontation between Iraq & the Saudi's.