ok i guess i have some serious plausibility issues thank you for taking the time to point them out (i didnt notice them sorry)
and this is my 1st timeline
Again, thanks for being receptive. It's a breath of fresh air to see a newbie who responds like you do. For the future, people will generally take you more seriously if you capitalize the beginnings of your sentences and use proper grammar. If you do so, it'll stop distracting from the timeline and will allow you to let others hear your ideas more clearly and easily.
"Why, having reached Baghdad, would the US allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power? At that point, wouldn't it be in our interest to depose him and replace him, if not with a democracy, then with an autocrat better suited to our interests? It's like hitting a homer and stopping at third." (im a newbie i havent even figured out how to quote yet)
im sorry i didnt take the time to explain what i thought in my head about this
Saddam is stubborn about peace terms, US wants him to pay some reperations but he refuses, basically to prove to him that the US is boss they start to invade iraq but they barely cross the border before Saddam comes to the negotioation table
I'm still not entirely clear on the timeline. What you have written in the post says that the allies get nearly all the way to Baghdad before halting and negotiating. Are you saying that the US wants Saddam to pay reparations for invading Kuwait? If you are, that seems an unlikely position for the US to take. We were not the only buyers of Kuwaiti oil, and in any case, Saddam would have owed the Kuwaitis reparations, not the Americans.
"The group, being al-Qaeda, which barely existed in 1990-91. It had only been founded two years before and had little funding other than Bin Laden's personal fortune. It had yet to find a permanent base of operations (which would be Sudan, in a few years). Now, it is possible that al-Qaeda might want to be based in Iraq, but it's unlikely. The country is too secular and (at that point) governed to easily permit al-Qaeda there. Even less likely is that Saddam Hussein, a secularist, would allow a Islamic terrorist group to be based on his soil. He was extremely paranoid, and wouldn't trust them. If he wanted revenge on the United States, he would have created/funded his own terrorist group."
as i wrote before "Saddam also becomes much more religous believing that the Coalition War was a sign that he didnt have enough faith or commitment to Allah" he is no longer a secularlist and is now a faithful muslim (or at least a faithful extremist jihadist muslim) i do need to go more in depth on changes in iraq though into an iraq al qaeda could plausibly inhabit
The edits you've made do go into better detail about the changes in Iraq during the '90s. However, you have a few things you'll need to consider. First of all, such a dramatic character change in Saddam is out of character for the man, and while it's possible, it seems slightly implausible. Secondly, even if Saddam himself were to have a change of heart, he would still face resistance from his own secular Ba'ath Party and the relatively secular society of Iraq. It's especially odd that Iraq would become an Islamic state as just severa years prior, Iraq had fought against Islamism for 8 years during the Iran-Iraq War.
ok North Alliance disappearing was an ASB magical butterfly for someone too lazy to make a reason for that
and 9-11 on steroids might be ASB but i rationalize that with no terrorist attacks on America it would be easier to sneak agents in
il look into that
so have i cleared up some issues?
and i do need to go more in depth in several areas
anything i havent addressed in this post?
and thank you for taking the time to comment and give me some help
If al-Qaeda is acting as a paramilitary force for Saddam Hussein's Iraq, that means its membership rolls will need to be much higher; in the tens of thousands, as opposed to in the hundreds of OTL. That means that the organization will be much, much more visible, and therefore it will be harder to keep their activities secret. The leaders will have to be publicly named and known for the group to effectively function as a paramilitary force. Therefore, it would be harder to recruit agents who could enter the US legally, as connections to al-Qaeda would be easier to trace.
Lastly, I would recommend going back and restarting the timeline. It's an interesting idea, but it needs more development, more details and more research to be a good timeline. Start off by reading
The Commanders, by Bob Woodward, and
The Looming Tower, by Lawrence Wright. The first is about the leadup to the First Gulf War, and the latter is about al-Qaeda's founding and history up to the September 11th attacks. Both are excellent and will provide a good starting point for your timeline.