No Gulf War after the Invasion of Kuwait

What if Congress, fearful of a repeat of Vietnam, refuses authorization for the Gulf War?

What ends up happening in the Middle East?
 
If you go back and read the newspapers the first couple days after the occupation of Kuwait you will fond something interesting.

All the articles are about the possible effect to the price of oil.

In NONE of them was there a sense of a major crisis that demanded US intervention. Prior to President Bush addressing Congress the media did not see a war impending.

British Prime Minister Thatcher spoke to president Bush and helped convince him that the US had to act.

It's hard to remember now but back in 1990 Saddam Hussein was on good terms with us. It was Iran that was the bad guy and Hussein was one of those military dictators that while not exactly a force for democracy was on our side and useful. The same sort we had supported all through Latin America and Asia so long as they were anti-communist.

So long as the Iraqi army halted at the Saudi border, which they did, the US and the West could have simply accepted what happened as a fait accompli and remained on good terms with Iraq.

If President Bush never decides to to drive out the Iraqis there is no Desert Storm or Persian Gulf War. Ossama Bin laden is never infuriated by the sight of American soldiers and especially female American soldiers defiling what he views as the Holy Land. There is no Al Queda, there is no 9 / 11, no US paranoia, no Patriot Act, there is no war in Afgahnistan, there is no second war with Iraq, and there is no general hatred between the US and the Muslim world.

There would still be tensions centered around Israel and Iran. The Middle east would remain a trouble spot and the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan.

On the plus side the twin towers would still be standing and most Americans would think the Taliban was some sort of fancy towel or napkin.
 
That's going to be tough. Remember everyone except the Palestinians were on our side for that one.

The French, and the RUssians!

Still, the dems take a hit politicallys as Saddam becomes even more of a regional power, with the money form Kuwait.

Lots of money flowing to Russia for weapons. To a lesser extent France.

Possibly might try to bully Saudi Arabia. But the US probably has troops there in a defensive role.

Mmm, I don't see Saddam, even with this power boost getting into another war with Iran. Saudi Arabia would be out with the US there.

Syria? Jordan? Maybe long term after he builds up more, and the US reduces troop levels in Saudi Arabia.

US troops in Saudi Arabia is a provocation to Osama as per OTL, even more so because they stay.

Mmm, could they be a target? Not a soft one.


Mmm, as an accepted war of conquest, this could encourage more of the same, if anyone else has similar ideas. Not sure where.
 
remember the US had to fake pics of a iraqi buildup on the Saudi border to get the Saudis to ask for help.


no faking , no request for help, the issue dies down.
 
The only way this happens is if the invasion happens in 1992 and Saddam *starts off* with nuclear weapons. And why that man waits to 2002 is a good question.
 

Cook

Banned
What if Congress...refuses authorization for the Gulf War?

What ends up happening in the Middle East?
Actually not an unlikely scenario back then and not just because of a Congress shocked by the potential number of body bags that would possibly result from a land battle against a dictator armed to the teeth with the latest Soviet aircraft, armour and artillery, but also with an enormous arsenal of chemical weapons that he’d shown absolutely no reluctance to use in the past.

There was also the fact that Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union; a UN Security Council vote authorising military force to liberate Kuwait that did not incur a Soviet veto was considered unlikely, the fact that the Soviet Union voted for Resolution 678 was at the time considered nothing short of extraordinary.

Saddam didn’t do himself any favours diplomatically. Since the Second World War, international borders had been considered virtually sacrosanct; there’d been almost no major border changes. If someone invaded a neighbour they’d set up a puppet regime and give the pretence that they were aiding the conquered nation. Instead, Saddam annexed Kuwait, claiming that it was a former province of Iraq stolen by the British; the fact that Kuwait predated Iraq and that Iraq didn’t exist until the British invented it was something he hoped people wouldn’t notice. Perhaps if he’d announced that he was aiding a Kuwaiti Provisional Republican Government, and unveiled a suitable set of Kuwaiti Quislings he’d have stood a better chance; he could have bussed in the necessary rent-a-crowd from Basra so that international television stations could be shown the masses of Kuwait cheering their liberators.

Such a gimmick would not have worked in Riyadh. There it of nothing short of pandemonium in August 1990; everyone fully expected that Saddam’s tanks would roll on over the border within days. The Saudi armed forces, while extremely well equipped, were far too small to be any obstacle to Saddam on their own. A request of external assistance to defend the kingdom was inevitable. Especially once Saddam, who styled himself as the leader of the Arab nation, heir to Nasser and Nebuchadnezzar, started accusing the Saudi’s of being mere puppets of The West and unworthy guardians of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. For such a request to be rejected, given what had just happened, would have been flat out inconceivable; the first elements of the 101st Airborne would have still been on the ground in Saudi Arabia within days.

It would have been the start of a permanent defensive force deployment in Saudi Arabia and The Gulf, probably been in the order of two US armoured divisions and a British armoured brigade permanently deployed in the Kingdom, with equipment stockpiled there to allow for rapid deployment of further forces when necessary, along with a large air force commitment. And permanent means permanent, the following twenty years or until Saddam was somehow removed from power and his successor proved less threatening.

The Kuwaiti forces that fought Saddam for several days in August 1990 until fleeing over the border into Saudi Arabia, would probably be permanently incorporated into the Saudi kingdom’s Armed forces, just as there was a Palestinian brigade in the Iraqi army. Kuwait’s A4 Skyhawks, after carrying out missions operating off the highway in southern Kuwait of a couple of days, would after crossing the border into Saudi and being redesignated the Free Kuwait Air Force, would likewise form a squadron of the Saudi AF.

A permanent large American force presence in the Saudi kingdom would not be without its difficulties, not least that it would outrage the scion of a Saudi construction magnate, who had in 1990 only recently returned from Afghanistan.
 
Bush does not get that surge in popularity. Dick Gephardt runs and wins in 1992. Since there is no scandal, a Democrat wins in 2000. He or she is probably reelected and a Republican wins in 2008. Since there is no stimulus package, the economy is much and he or she is in real trouble this year.
 
Bush does not get that surge in popularity. Dick Gephardt runs and wins in 1992. Since there is no scandal, a Democrat wins in 2000. He or she is probably reelected and a Republican wins in 2008. Since there is no stimulus package, the economy is much and he or she is in real trouble this year.
A Gephardt presidency would keep more of the *Perot voters as well. The Republicans taking the House wasn't inevitable, especially with a former Majority Leader as POTUS. And Glass-Steagall repeal will get the veto for sure. The economic slowdown could well start in 2005 or 2010 or anytime.
 
Top