First Gulf War: WI we went all the way to Baghdad?

They're outlawed. But I really don't think we'd respond like that.

It'd depend alot on what got into Bush's head. The Coalition was kept together because the whole aim of Desert Storm was to get the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait. Sure, we were also aiming to destroy the Republican Guard so a later uprising could go against Saddam, but the Arab Corps was on board because of the promise not to drive to Baghdad.

And before anyone counts the Arab Corps out, remember that they were basically the other half of the two corps punch that hit the Kuwaiti border head on from the south (the other corps being the Marine Corps farther in on the coast).
These aren't exactly the kind of troops you'd want dropping out.

Especially if the Bush, Sr. Administration let it slip too early that this was their plan. The Egyptians and Jordanians who were providing the bulk of the trained Arab firepower probably would've told the Western powers to screw off, and with good reason.

But is it possible to have a successful drive to Baghdad regardless?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
But is it possible to have a successful drive to Baghdad regardless?

With VII Corps, XVIII Airborne Corps, and Marine Corps?

Yeah. Probably. With the airpower we had, and assuming the British and French would've stayed (the French had POWs in Iraqi custody before we did, during the initial invasion), those three Corp groups would've been at relatively full strength.

From what I've read, mostly books written by folks who were in CENTCOM and EUCOM at the time, we could've done it.

It just wouldn't have been pretty afterwards. That's all.
 
With VII Corps, XVIII Airborne Corps, and Marine Corps?

Yeah. Probably. With the airpower we had, and assuming the British and French would've stayed (the French had POWs in Iraqi custody before we did, during the initial invasion), those three Corp groups would've been at relatively full strength.

From what I've read, mostly books written by folks who were in CENTCOM and EUCOM at the time, we could've done it.

It just wouldn't have been pretty afterwards. That's all.

It would be an interesting timeline to say the least.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
It would be an interesting timeline to say the least.

I actually did about 10 pages of one where the Iraqis went south about three weeks after invading Kuwait, and attempted to take the oilfields in Saudi Arabia.
Then I decided to do the Soviet Invasion of Iran, instead. The Iraqi Army is interesting, and the Iraqi Army in the 80s was even crazier, since Saddam didn't feel a compunction against using chemical weapons.


One of the interesting things about Iraq during Desert Storm was that it had an integrated air-defense system. We hadn't ever gone up against something like that, and still haven't again to this day. The French designed it, so when Saddam's men took French hostages in Kuwait they kind of shot themselves in the foot. But the CARY system was a really interesting communications mainframe that linked all the SAM sites. It upped the danger level.
Had we had to go after them the hard way, without the French knowledge of where the nodes where buried, it would've been the heyday of the Wild Weasels. Even more than it was.
 

King Thomas

Banned
WI like the Soviets did with the Poles in 1944, Bush urges the Iraqis to rise up (as in OTL) does nothing to help them whilst they are slaughtered (as in OTL) and then strikes for Baghdad? In the short term, those who might later turn their guns on the US, are dead,and by the time new gunmen can take their place, the US might well have pulled it's troops out of Iraq anyway.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
WI like the Soviets did with the Poles in 1944, Bush urges the Iraqis to rise up (as in OTL) does nothing to help them whilst they are slaughtered (as in OTL) and then strikes for Baghdad? In the short term, those who might later turn their guns on the US, are dead,and by the time new gunmen can take their place, the US might well have pulled it's troops out of Iraq anyway.

Uh...then we'd have absolutely no friends in the Middle East. At all.

The Arab governments would probably be completely within their rights to say that we did what we did to hang all the Kurds and Marsh Arabs out to dry, then take the Iraqi Oil for ourselves.

There wouldn't be an Arab government for years who would like us. Yeah, they might sell us oil (or they might not), but they'd hate us.
 
I recall that Saddam would indeed have used chemical weapons against Coalition forces; that said, I think you are misjudging Saudi opinion--they wanted Saddam down and unable to rise again.

Desert Storm was expected to encounter chemical agents. Would the USA respond with nuclear weapons? First of all, the USA using nukes does several things that is not in its interest--it encourages others to use nukes in heavy fighting, it would be the first offensive use of the weapons for nearly fifty years, and it would almost certainly lead to a popular outcry.

We'd only use nuclear weapons if US forces were getting routed and faced capture or destruction on the ground. I don't think that Iraq, with its crappy morale, would require nuclear launches, and I'm sure that the USA doesn't want nukes thrown around.

All this said, I can't rule out a US nuclear strike, but it would be a token strike (probably just one) against a military target with the deliberate intent of warning against further WMD strikes. Even this move would be fiercely protested, and would be a political move not lightly taken...
 
I recall that Saddam would indeed have used chemical weapons against Coalition forces; that said, I think you are misjudging Saudi opinion--they wanted Saddam down and unable to rise again.

Desert Storm was expected to encounter chemical agents. Would the USA respond with nuclear weapons? First of all, the USA using nukes does several things that is not in its interest--it encourages others to use nukes in heavy fighting, it would be the first offensive use of the weapons for nearly fifty years, and it would almost certainly lead to a popular outcry.

We'd only use nuclear weapons if US forces were getting routed and faced capture or destruction on the ground. I don't think that Iraq, with its crappy morale, would require nuclear launches, and I'm sure that the USA doesn't want nukes thrown around.

All this said, I can't rule out a US nuclear strike, but it would be a token strike (probably just one) against a military target with the deliberate intent of warning against further WMD strikes. Even this move would be fiercely protested, and would be a political move not lightly taken...

I doubt that even a token strike would be used. The Iraqi Army, while powerful, hardly required nuclear weapons to defeat or warn.
 
Top