AHC: Resolve Iraq's Issue of Weapon of Mass Destruction in 2003 Without War

Instead of launching an invasion to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein in 2003, have the United States and Britain find a way to resolve disputes over weapons of mass destruction either through negotiation or limited military intervention not significant enough for a full scale war.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Easy. Don't agree to the idiotic "can we fly our helicopters?" deal when the Gulf War is ending.

Without the helps the dual revolts (southern Arabs and Kurds) succeed and send Saddam to his reward in 1991-2.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Easy. Don't agree to the idiotic "can we fly our helicopters?" deal when the Gulf War is ending.

Without the helps the dual revolts (southern Arabs and Kurds) succeed and send Saddam to his reward in 1991-2.

An interesting and, as near as I can tell, unexplored POD.
 
Easy, give Saddam Hussein a working brain rather than the narcissistic, psychotic one he did. He then accepts that the US is going to basically destroy him, so he either leaves the country or allows a proper weapons inspection.
Or have him toppled in the 1991 revolts.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
For those perhaps not familiar with the idea, what exactly is this "fly our helicopters" deal you speak of?

When Norman Schwarzkopf was negotiating the ceasefire agreement with the Iraqis, he said that any Iraqi plane flying would be instantly shot down. The Iraqis asked if helicopters could be used, since that would make it easier for officers to move from place to place in order to facilitate the movements of their troops in order to conform to the ceasefire agreement. Schwarzkopf agreed. The Iraqis then began using helicopter gunships on a mass scale against both the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south, which played a major role in the suppression of both rebellions. Schwarzkopf later expressed extreme regret and frankly admitted than he would be hoodwinked.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
For those perhaps not familiar with the idea, what exactly is this "fly our helicopters" deal you speak of?
When the cease-fire was arranged the Iraqis pulled a fast one on Schwarzkopf. While negotiating the terms of the cease fire, including the "no-fly" rules the Iraqis asked him if they could fly armed helos for transportation and evac. He agreed, provided they did not overfly Coalition forces. The Iraqis then used those aircraft to suppress the revolts that most in the West, including Bush I, expected to overthrow Saddam, almost the minute Coalition troops exited the country.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_01-02/JANFEB-IraqSarin

The West couldn't do much more than use harsh language since they had agreed to allow the armed helos to fly anywhere there were no Coalition forces.


Fast forward 12 years. Iraq II, but on the cheap and without sufficient combat mass to control the entire country.

Yay.
 
Instead of launching an invasion to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein in 2003, have the United States and Britain find a way to resolve disputes over weapons of mass destruction either through negotiation or limited military intervention not significant enough for a full scale war.
The WMDs where a figleaf for military adventurism. You can erase Saddam or rumors about WMDs from the equation. But that doesnt change the Bush administration and its cronies.
 
Instead of launching an invasion to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein in 2003, have the United States and Britain find a way to resolve disputes over weapons of mass destruction either through negotiation or limited military intervention not significant enough for a full scale war.

I have never seen any convincing evidence that the WMD dispute had any actual basis in fact, as opposed to being a completely made-up pretext by the US and Britain created to justify the invasion. This means that there would have been no actual dispute to be resolved diplomatically, since there were no WMDs to discuss about anymore*, and the American administration very likely already knew that (though Bush may have personally believed the lies his staff was propagating).
Since the actual aim was, almost certainly from the start, to topple Saddam and install a pliable Iraqi government in his place (and/or dismembering Iraq, a policy that was publicly considered and may even have been more sensible - for a given value of "sensible") nothing short of Saddam stepping down and peacefully letting the West occupy his country for a while is likely to work.

* Of course, Iraq DID have chemical weapons in the eighties, and liberally used them. Republican US administrations back then do not go on my record as having been very concerned about that.
 

Archibald

Banned
Listen to France (instead of throwing shit at it), which was right saying the war was not justified since Iraqis WMDs were long gone. :p
 
Top