Impossible! The United States invades Iraq during or after Desert Storm

Nobody outside of the US wanted to push to Baghdad, and it was pointless; Saddam had been knocked out of Kuwait, US oil supplies in the area were protected, the Iraqi military was more or less destroyed.

Well, the Kurds, especially all the ones Saddam killed after the coalition pulled out, might disagree with you. You know, the ones the US incited (with quite a bit of success) to rebel?
 
A couple thoughts on this topic, obviously nothing comprehensive. For frame of reference, I did three tours in Iraq, including with 4th ID in 2003.

Logistics: If the Saudis cut us off, we'd be screwed. Bullets don't magically comes from nowhere. Nowdays, all the support comes in through Kuwait, which makes us immune to the vicissitudes of those Saudi scum. The Kuwaitis know which side their bread is buttered on. But in 1991, Kuwait City harbor was not quite in shape to handle 500K worth of troops. So any POD MUST take into account how Geo. Bush Sr. bullies the Saudis into signing off.

Iraq's ability to sustain an insurgency: Much, much reduced from where it was in 2003. Hussein had spent 13 years stockpiling weapons and ammunition and hiding it out in the desert. 9 months after we got in, we were still finding ammunition supply points out in the middle of BFE nowwhere in the desert. Most of Iraq's weapons and ammo were burning in the middle of the desert in 1990.

Leadership: In 2003, much of the Ba'ath leadership fled into Syria, where it formed the initial core of the "Former Regime Elements" Sunni insurgency, and created the logistical support structure that kept the Sunni insurgency alive. Not going to happen in 1990, because they never believed that regime change was going to happen. In 2003, they believed. We were supposed to prevent that (secondary objective for 4ID was sealing the Syrian border) but the goddamn Turks stabbed us in the back.

Other players: No AQI. This is a major deal.

Iran: Damn good question whether Bush I could have handled them better, or whether they would have gotten as heavily involved in a proxy war with the US. My theory is that, just as in OTL, within six months we'd be catching Qods Force in Iraq. Which means the Shia insurgency works out the same or worse.

Took us pretty much 7 years to end the insurgency in Iraq (yes, this is what Iraq looks like in a time of relative peace -- compare to number of Iraqis killed by Iraqis during the Hussein era), but a lot of that has to do with variables that aren't quantifiable, and that most people don't understand well enough to try to quantify. Shoot, if my POD was CPT Travis Patriquin dying in a training accident in late 2005, it might add a year to the insurgency's life. It might not matter in that someone else would hit upon the same idea. (CPT P. invented the Sons of Iraq, which basically ended the Sunni insurgency).
 
Logistics: If the Saudis cut us off, we'd be screwed. Bullets don't magically comes from nowhere. Nowdays, all the support comes in through Kuwait, which makes us immune to the vicissitudes of those Saudi scum. The Kuwaitis know which side their bread is buttered on. But in 1991, Kuwait City harbor was not quite in shape to handle 500K worth of troops. So any POD MUST take into account how Geo. Bush Sr. bullies the Saudis into signing off.

While in general I agree with you, I have a quibble on this point. So let's say the Saudi government says 'no seaports for you'. Yeah, I'll buy that they're fanatical enough to say it. But what happens then? What stops VII Corps from turning around and taking a port? The Saudi army certainly couldn't. Grab all the fuel and ammo in a corps and funnel it into one division to re-open the supply line. Two DIVISIONS of Marines and half the USN were in range to provide support, and their supply lines are in their own hands. Plus, if push came to shove, there were a lot of other NATO contingents on the ground with the US. Who do you think they'd pick in a showdown?

Yes, there would be severe political consequences, even if the US leaves Mecca alone. OTOH, the Saudis would have just stabbed the US in the back after inviting them in - it wouldn't take a lot of spin to paint them as the bad guys. The rest of 'arabia' won't care about that, but they hated the US all along - no changes there.
 

tqm111

Banned
The House of Saud isn't radical. They're rational actors balancing internal and external realpolitik. They were then, they are now. Its was always in their rational self interest to let the US in.
 
The House of Saud isn't radical. They're rational actors balancing internal and external realpolitik. They were then, they are now. Its was always in their rational self interest to let the US in.

Perhaps we have different definitions of 'radical'. The Mutaween look pretty radical to me, for example.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Ah, to state the obvious...

THE UNITED STATES DID INVADE IRAQ. THAT'S WHAT DESERT STORM WAS.

If you mean push on to Baghdad, the question is WHY? The Coalition had won the war (granted an extra 48 hours would have put paid to the Republican Guard, but the geo-politics sort of required Iraq to counter balance Iran), and had done it with remarkably low casualties. American political and military prestige were at their highest point since VJ Day. The U.S. lacked, even then, sufficient forces to occupy all of Iraq for any length of time without inflicting serious damage on the Force (something that, despite his faults, Bush I actually understood when his professional advisor's explained it to him).

The single stupidest thing that Bush II did in his Presidency was to invade Iraq (and considering the litany of stupid that came out of the Bush II years that is saying a lot). Saddam was totally contained, he ruled the City State of Baghdad, that was it. The Americans and British owned Iraq's skies, there was a de facto Kurdistan, and the Iranians were at bay, with no reasonable hope of ever dominating Iraq. The entire world was sympathetic to the U.S. in that post 9/11 world, backing us in Afghanistan without reservation.

Unfortunately GW didn't have the brains to pour piss out of a boot (with instructions written on the bottom of the heel at that), ignored people who actually knew what the hell they were talking about (unlike his father, guess the perspective is different if you actually flew in combat instead of screwing around for the last year of your reserve contract), and stuck the United States' weenie into a meat grinder for no damned reason at all.
 
While in general I agree with you, I have a quibble on this point. So let's say the Saudi government says 'no seaports for you'. Yeah, I'll buy that they're fanatical enough to say it. But what happens then? What stops VII Corps from turning around and taking a port? The Saudi army certainly couldn't. Grab all the fuel and ammo in a corps and funnel it into one division to re-open the supply line. Two DIVISIONS of Marines and half the USN were in range to provide support, and their supply lines are in their own hands. Plus, if push came to shove, there were a lot of other NATO contingents on the ground with the US. Who do you think they'd pick in a showdown?

Yes, there would be severe political consequences, even if the US leaves Mecca alone. OTOH, the Saudis would have just stabbed the US in the back after inviting them in - it wouldn't take a lot of spin to paint them as the bad guys. The rest of 'arabia' won't care about that, but they hated the US all along - no changes there.

The US turning on Saudi Arabia is a pretty far fetched scenario. It's technically possible from the military standpoint, but politically it would be a disaster.
 

Cook

Banned
Nobody outside of the US wanted to push to Baghdad, and it was pointless; Saddam had been knocked out of Kuwait, US oil supplies in the area were protected, the Iraqi military was more or less destroyed.

The cease-fire came as a huge surprise to the British who weren’t even consulted about it.
 

gridlocked

Banned
There was strong pressure for Bush to topple Hussein, both from sections of American public opinion and because the Shia and Kurdish uprising started right after the allied Victory and the uprising (and subsequent slaughter) was heavily covered by the international media. Going to Baghdad would have split the coalition. For instance I do not think our ally of convenience Syria would have approved!

Bush I and Scrowcroft did not do it because they were ideological realists and they applied a realist solution. There decision was bitterly criticized by the right and mocked by the left as 1/2 a victory. By the time of the 1992 elections Hussein was recognized as a long term term problem and such problematic policy choices as double containment (referring to Iraq and Iran) were already starting to be tossed about. The decision not to go all the way was instrumental in Bush Sr. being a one term President.

If Thatcher was still PM they might of went all the way. All of Bush's key advisers Scrowcroft, Baker, and Powell were in agreement with the President on stopping. I believe that even if they knew that Saddam would remain in power they probably would have adopted the same policy since all 3 were committed realists. [See Brent Scrowcroft's reasoning above in this thread]. I do not know Cheney's position, but as Baker and Scrowcroft were so powerful in the Bush I regime I do not think Cheney could have convinced the President to go topple Saddam as long as they are both around .

It is very easy imagining another President going to Baghdad. It is hard imagining Bush Sr. going.
 
It was the official policy of the US government since at least '93 to remove the Hussein regime. The Frogs, Krauts, and Russians were itching to remove the Sanctions and one way or another the 1991-2003 state of affairs for Iraq was ending. Hindsight is obviously 20/20 (disbanding the Iraqi army was dumb, thinking that Iraq had the statesmen to rise above an iron fisted tyrant was naive). In retrospect, the best solution would have been to decapitate the regime (Saddam and his boys) and cynically set up the next tin pot Baath Party dictator to keep the house in order lest all the ant hills get knocked over again.

Ioannes , you bastards were a few months late (I was with I MEF waiting in Baghdad for you pukes to come relieve us so we could leave). :D
 
It was the official policy of the US government since at least '93 to remove the Hussein regime. The Frogs, Krauts, and Russians were itching to remove the Sanctions and one way or another the 1991-2003 state of affairs for Iraq was ending. Hindsight is obviously 20/20 (disbanding the Iraqi army was dumb, thinking that Iraq had the statesmen to rise above an iron fisted tyrant was naive). In retrospect, the best solution would have been to decapitate the regime (Saddam and his boys) and cynically set up the next tin pot Baath Party dictator to keep the house in order lest all the ant hills get knocked over again.

Ioannes , you bastards were a few months late (I was with I MEF waiting in Baghdad for you pukes to come relieve us so we could leave). :D

Uxi, trust me it was NOT my idea. If the damned Turks hadn't betrayed us (should have booted them straight out of NATO the next day) we'd have shaken hands in downtown Baghdad.

As for long-term solutions, I'm thinking that installing Random FRE Official would not have worked out well. That's just my perspective.
 
There were more than enough ruthless strongmen and their proteges in that deck of cards who would have kept the Shia down and the Sunni in order. They would have obviously been eager to show they weren't a US puppet and would probably thumb their nose at us over this, that, or the other... and we'd have gladly accepted that because the message would have been sent that you only get so much slack in the asshattery rope before it's coiled into a noose.

I can admire Dubya's naive idealism in thinking they were ready for western democracy, but the realist in me says the cynical way would have led to more angst on the Left but less blood and tears shed. Done properly, the average Iraq would have respected it, too, but I guess that's balanced on the edge of the knife.
 
There were more than enough ruthless strongmen and their proteges in that deck of cards who would have kept the Shia down and the Sunni in order. They would have obviously been eager to show they weren't a US puppet and would probably thumb their nose at us over this, that, or the other... and we'd have gladly accepted that because the message would have been sent that you only get so much slack in the asshattery rope before it's coiled into a noose.

I can admire Dubya's naive idealism in thinking they were ready for western democracy, but the realist in me says the cynical way would have led to more angst on the Left but less blood and tears shed. Done properly, the average Iraq would have respected it, too, but I guess that's balanced on the edge of the knife.

I'm not sure Paul Bremer or any of the "25 year olds from Texas" could manage an intallation of a dictator in a way to keep the respect of the population. And it would have been political death in the US -- we don't really like foreign policy realism.

Me, I was in Ramadi when it turned for us (late '06), and I'm pretty happy about my brigade's piece of that. Worked with Marines there, too. Good guys, especially the riverine crews who let me go play on the range with their GAUs (drug deal -- I "found" some replacement barrels for them).

Idealism is more expensive, but when it works, it has repercussions that we really haven't seen yet.
 
My 2 eurocents : To invade Iraq in 1991 (or rather, to depose Saddam as Iraq was invaded all right) would have required a solid alternative to Saddam. We've seen in 2003 what happens when the post-war stuff isn't thought through.

Also, deposing Saddam in 1991, with a presidential election coming up, would be a risky proposition for GHWB. Deploying troops for 6 months in what is seen a police operation with a clear exit door (Kuwait liberated) was one thing. Sending American troops for years to come in a country that basically would have to be rebuild from scratch, with no end in sight, would be another.

Deposing Saddam would cause a lot of problems on the international scene (although GHWB's team, IMHO, would have had it easier than W here because the father was UN-savvy, Saudi Arabia a lot more grateful after Khafji, and his top aides a lot less belligerent).
 
Also, deposing Saddam in 1991, with a presidential election coming up, would be a risky proposition for GHWB. Deploying troops for 6 months in what is seen a police operation with a clear exit door (Kuwait liberated) was one thing. Sending American troops for years to come in a country that basically would have to be rebuild from scratch, with no end in sight, would be another.

Hrm. . . Deposing Saddam in 1991 and an election about 18 months later. . . Depends on other factors. Question 1 is how well is the insurgency doing. It took them almost a year to really get off the ground in a major way, and I think it would be slower and weaker in the initial phases for reasons already cited. There's also the question of the impact on the economy -- Bush's electoral failure depended 100% on the economy. Why? Because we weren't at war. If we were, Clinton wouldn't get much traction unless Bush were caught in bed with dead girls or live boys[1].


[1]Disclaimer: I wouldn't care so long as the latter were adult and consenting, but his base would. A lot.
 
Honestly, I see GHWB's Gulf War as practically the perfect storm. His Eisenhower moment, alnost, with US keadership accepted across the board. No antiwar movement, every friend onboard and by God, even enemies get enlisted. Bush Senior was a much more difficult proposition to refuse. His Gulf war was the only reasonable option, there was no way it caused a global furore.

If the timing had been right, with the election further away, I think he could have pulled it off.
 

gridlocked

Banned
There was a strong anti-war movement at least before the Iraqi collapse. In fact, Al Gore who was considered, at the time, one of the more hawkish Democrats supported it only after an agonized soliloquy on the floor of the Senate. I believe about half the Democrats in the Senate did not support the resolution that lead to Desert Storm. The democrats only escaped repudiation at the polls because Bush was proved right two months AFTER the midterms and by the time the 1992 elections came about Desert Storm was old news.

This is why main stream democrats were so ineffective in opposing the start of Gulf War II. They were afraid of being proven wrong again and, this time, being spanked at the polls.

Reconsidering my previous post I think it is possible that Bush I goes all the way in '91, because I forgot about one Bush advisor. CNN. During the Bush I years, Fox was not yet firmly established so to keep up with what was going on Bush simply watched CNN, much to the despair of his special (CIA) briefers and others paid big bucks to keep the President informed. In fact we probably went into Somalia in '92 because the place was being played up as a big humanatarian disaster on CNN. Some graphic images of Iraqis begging for Bush to finish the job on CNN, going out to Bush (and by implication) the rest of the American public might have swayed Bush to overrule his realpolitik advisors.
 
Wot, no support?

I thought that the French Foreign Legion were within 100 miles of Baghdad and the French President wanted to carry on, but Bush and Major ducked it. The Arabs wanted to know why Bush hadn't gone in, he said they hadn't wanted it "- Oh, but that was just politics."

Am I wrong?
 
Top