Iraq With a Dukakis Presidency in the U.S.

CaliGuy

Banned
Had Michael Dukakis miraculously won in 1988, how would we have handled Iraq? Specifically:

1. Would Saddam have still invaded Kuwait in this TL?
2. If so, how would Dukakis react to such a move on Saddam's part?
3. If Dukakis decides to go to war with Iraq to liberate Kuwait, does he continue all of the way up to Baghdad or does he stop prematurely like Bush Sr. did in our TL?

Any thoughts on all of this?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Also, how much of a say did April Glaspie's comments to Saddam in 1990 in our TL have on his decision to invade Kuwait?
 
3. If Dukakis decides to go to war with Iraq to liberate Kuwait, does he continue all of the way up to Baghdad or does he stop prematurely like Bush Sr. did in our TL?
The way the war went in OTL with Pres. Bush, Sr., was almost the worse of all possible worlds. We had a injurious war with a lot of bombs dropped, and then we had some twelve years of sanctions in which Iraqi children suffered more than anyone else.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The way the war went in OTL with Pres. Bush, Sr., was almost the worse of all possible worlds. We had a injurious war with a lot of bombs dropped, and then we had some twelve years of sanctions in which Iraqi children suffered more than anyone else.
Completely agreed; honestly, Saddam should have been ousted back in 1991!
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
3. If Dukakis decides to go to war with Iraq to liberate Kuwait, does he continue all of the way up to Baghdad or does he stop prematurely like Bush Sr. did in our TL?
Bush didn't stop prematurely, Bush stopped because the mission was accomplished. Iraq was out of Kuwait- end of. He didn't go on to Baghdad because he didn't want a mission creep and end up occupying a country surrounded by countries hostile to the occupation. He didn't go on to Baghdad because the Coalition wouldn't survive an outright invasion of Iraq; the Saudi's made it absolutely clear they would without a doubt decline to support America further if they launched an invasion, and it would have grossly exceeded the UN's mandate, as well as destroying America's precedent of international response by painting them as aggressors. Bush didn't want to betray the Saudi's, and was of the then popular view that Saddam would collapse in a few years due to the humiliation of the defeat, however also wanted Iraq to remain as a single entity because of how chaotic a fragmented Iraq would have been.

Dukakis, if the Gulf War still occurs, will face these same issues, and he wouldn't be so much of an idiot to outright invade Iraq, destroy America's reputation on the world stage by exceeding the UN's mandate for the intervention, alienate the Saudis, and face a bitter and long occupation in a country surrounded by people who oppose the occupation in the strongest terms.

Bottom line, if the Gulf War still happens, Dukakis isn't going to overstep his boundaries and make what is potentially the worst foreign policy decision since Nixon escalated the Vietnam War to Laos and Cambodia.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Bush didn't stop prematurely, Bush stopped because the mission was accomplished. Iraq was out of Kuwait- end of. He didn't go on to Baghdad because he didn't want a mission creep and end up occupying a country surrounded by countries hostile to the occupation. He didn't go on to Baghdad because the Coalition wouldn't survive an outright invasion of Iraq; the Saudi's made it absolutely clear they would without a doubt decline to support America further if they launched an invasion, and it would have grossly exceeded the UN's mandate, as well as destroying America's precedent of international response by painting them as aggressors. Bush didn't want to betray the Saudi's, and was of the then popular view that Saddam would collapse in a few years due to the humiliation of the defeat, however also wanted Iraq to remain as a single entity because of how chaotic a fragmented Iraq would have been.

Dukakis, if the Gulf War still occurs, will face these same issues, and he wouldn't be so much of an idiot to outright invade Iraq, destroy America's reputation on the world stage by exceeding the UN's mandate for the intervention, alienate the Saudis, and face a bitter and long occupation in a country surrounded by people who oppose the occupation in the strongest terms.

Bottom line, if the Gulf War still happens, Dukakis isn't going to overstep his boundaries and make what is potentially the worst foreign policy decision since Nixon escalated the Vietnam War to Laos and Cambodia.
jmc247 has previously said that it's a myth that the Saudis opposed regime change in Iraq in 1991, though.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
jmc247 has previously said that it's a myth that the Saudis opposed regime change in Iraq in 1991, though.
So are you going to link that? Because I'd be interested in reading it.

Bush himself in a Times Magazine article wrote that "We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

Now, true, he doesn't specify that the Saudi's would desert America. However, you'll note that he raises a much bigger issue surrounding an outright invasion, as does the conclusion.
 
The way the war went in OTL with Pres. Bush, Sr., was almost the worse of all possible worlds. We had a injurious war with a lot of bombs dropped, and then we had some twelve years of sanctions in which Iraqi children suffered more than anyone else.
Meh. I rather think that "The way the war went in OTL with Pres. Bush, Jr." was far worse than the first Gulf War. If he had tried to do what his son did in the second war, it would have been a similar disaster to that second war - which in many ways is STILL continuing.
 
. . . and it would have grossly exceeded the UN's mandate, as well as destroying America's precedent of international response by painting them as aggressors. . .
All the same, Bush, Sr. may have been able to finesse it. For please remember, he called upon the people of Iraq to rebel, and they did rebel. So, in moderate form, he could have supported the rebellion, worked for a cease fire, coalition government, rebuilding, elections, etc. It might have even kind of worked.

What actually happened is that U.S. military units allowed Iraqi units to roll on by on their way to fight the rebels. And we were way belated in setting up no fly zones. Talk about clunky implementation of policy and a clums-a-saurus policy to begin with. Hell, we could have at least played a little poker and fired a few warning shots. I have a sneaking suspicion that bluff would have work.

And it sometimes can be a little quirky and unexpected what people resent you for. For example, I've read that Gerald Ford did not resent Ronnie Reagan running a hard primary challenge up through and including the 1976 Republican convention. But what he did resent Reagan for was not helping out with the fall campaign. Reagan even pleaded "previous commitments" when asked by the Ford campaign to help out in California.

So, I have read, yes, some Iraqis did resent us for calling for a rebellion and then not helping out. At times more than the war itself.
 
Last edited:

CaliGuy

Banned
So are you going to link that? Because I'd be interested in reading it.

Here you go:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-hw-bush-disposes-hussein.408156/

Bush himself in a Times Magazine article wrote that "We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

Now, true, he doesn't specify that the Saudi's would desert America. However, you'll note that he raises a much bigger issue surrounding an outright invasion, as does the conclusion.

Bush Sr. might have said all of that to cover his own butt, though.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Meh. I rather think that "The way the war went in OTL with Pres. Bush, Jr." was far worse than the first Gulf War. If he had tried to do what his son did in the second war, it would have been a similar disaster to that second war - which in many ways is STILL continuing.
Actually, one can argue that having ISIS control a part of Iraq is less problematic than having Saddam Hussein control all of Iraq; plus, it looks like ISIS will be kicked out of Iraq completely within the next several months! :D
 

CaliGuy

Banned
All the same, Bush, Sr. may have been able to finesse it. For please remember, he called upon the people of Iraq to rebel, and they did rebel. So, in moderate form, he could have supported the rebellion, worked for a cease fire, coalition government, rebuilding, elections, etc. It might have even kind of worked.
Completely agreed; indeed, AFAIK, sectarian tensions in Iraq were at least a little bit less back in 1991 than they were in 2003 and later.
 
. . . I rather think that "The way the war went in OTL with Pres. Bush, Jr." was far worse than the first Gulf War. . .
That's the challenge. The second war wasn't great either and we're being asked to damage-control and choose from a menu of lesser bad options.

All the same, I ask all of us, don't overlook the harm caused to the civilian population by the sanctions.

I hard George Galloway speak in Houston around (?) 1993. He was really great. He said, I'm not going to ask you to go all the way with me, I was against the war, you don't have to be. He talked about watching an Iraqi father cry and pull and scratch at his face during the funeral for his child. He gave the statistics for deaths due to sanctions against food and medicine and asked, how many weeks would it be before this church sanctuary was filled with the bodies of children.

Now, I am aware that George ran into trouble and some of the money he raised went to groups with claimed terrorism links. Maybe he made himself vulnerable to criticism, maybe he was looked under a microscope when other groups weren't, maybe he allowed himself to be played. All the same, he did not have all his ducks in order. Which is kind of why, that if someone is running around trying to organize and motivate all kinds of stuff, they kind of need a very trusted lieutenant who's very organized and very strong on the financial side.

It is kind of amazing how little sanctions were a political issue, until maybe the later Clinton years?? If someone can remember this, I'd appreciate it.
 
Last edited:
Top