1991 gulf war have your cake and eat it?

I have seen a few Gulf war questions as of late involving removing Sadam after smashing his army and then invading Iraq. Now I don't think going into Iraq in 1991 is a good option, maybe better then 03 with more troops and a less divided Iraqi society but still I feel far more trouble then it's worth. However what if the Us and its allies fully destroy the Rupublican Guard while its retreating and don't allow the Iraqis to us helicopters against the Shia and Kurds? Could Saddam be overthrown? Or at least could de facto independence Shia and Kurdish zones be set up that are pro west? Possible or wishful thinking?
 
I have seen a few Gulf war questions as of late involving removing Sadam after smashing his army and then invading Iraq. Now I don't think going into Iraq in 1991 is a good option, maybe better then 03 with more troops and a less divided Iraqi society but still I feel far more trouble then it's worth. However what if the Us and its allies fully destroy the Rupublican Guard while its retreating and don't allow the Iraqis to us helicopters against the Shia and Kurds? Could Saddam be overthrown? Or at least could de facto independence Shia and Kurdish zones be set up that are pro west? Possible or wishful thinking?

I was always of the opinion that this is what should have been done - however there are several issues that would prevent this from happening at the time

  • The Saudis did not want Saddam to fall - as this sets certain 'precedents' and they were worried about what fills that power vacuum
  • The Southern (Basra etc) region of Iraq is IIRC dominantly Shia and the dominantly Sunni Saudis would not want a Semi autonomous state - sharing a border with them and Iran (who are also predominantly Shia as well)
  • The Kurds - also claim a region of Turkey and Iran - and the formation of a semi autonomous Kurdish state in Iraq would be seen as a threat by those 2 nations one of which is an important NATO ally.
So these issues would have to be addressed / overcome before lines were rearranged on maps.
 
What's the difference between the US going into Iraq and their destroying his main military units then enforcing a total no-fly zone? At least with the former scenario there would be a mostly neutral stabilising force on the ground, with the latter one the dictatorship could well collapse with the country itself probably following closely behind. I'm not really seeing what the advantage is.
 
Top