Saddam and Osama bin-Laden switch fates

IOTL, Saddam Hussein was captured in December 2003, seven months after the end of the invasion, while Bin-Laden managed to avoid capture for another ten years after 9/11.

What if their fates switch? Osama, most likely by pure dumb luck, is captured somewhere on the Afghan-Pakistani border within a year of the invasion of Afghanistan (somewhere in summer or autumn 2004).

Saddam Hussein is successful in staying out of Allied hands. He eventually manages to rally the Sunni resistance, the remnants of the Ba'ath regime and surviving Republican Guard troops around him and he makes himself the face of the Sunni resistance.

Remainders of the Ba'ath regime's intelligence services infiltrate the new government and undermine it from within. Coordinated terrorist attacks against psychological and strategic targets like police stations, training camps for the new Iraqi army, polling stations, government buildings and even locations within Baghdad's most highly guarded areas (the areas declared "safe zones" by the new government) take place on an almost daily basis. Guerrilla raids by Republican Guard units attack enemy patrols and supply columns while Palestine style mortar attacks are employed against more hardened targets. Illegal radio broadcasts summon the population to resist American occupation whichever way they can; mostly the Sunni minority follow Saddam Hussein even if the majority resists only passively. A unified Sunni resistance occurs which has a lot of sympathizers outside Iraq and so, many Sunnis go to Iraq to fight for Saddam against the "big devil".

By 2011, Saddam Hussein is still at large and mosy likely alive since his radio broadcasts continue...

How does this affect Iraq and the world...
 
Last edited:
Depends. Iraq could still be invaded for other reasons, and with such a quick capture of Osama, the notion of being stuck in another long war may make the United States be willing to undergo another fast war to wipe out the Iraqi dictatorship.

The main problem is, Osama is not very visible, he can go underground with ease. Saddam is a dictator who people didn't like, and was sold out much quicker.

Maybe as a POD, Saddam is a more popular ruler, and Osama disliked heavily by both Pakistanis and Afghans.
 
Iraq was invaded in 2003. ITTL, Osama is captured in 2004 or so, so the invasion of Iraq isn't affected except for the PoD of Saddam eluding capture.

Ah my bad.

I doubt Saddam would be able to become such a rallying figure, it would take a while for him to establish contacts with the right people anyways, which might take years. Unless this was a long term plan, prepared before the invasion like the British in WW2 or the Albanians during the Cold War.
 
Ah my bad.

I doubt Saddam would be able to become such a rallying figure, it would take a while for him to establish contacts with the right people anyways, which might take years. Unless this was a long term plan, prepared before the invasion like the British in WW2 or the Albanians during the Cold War.

True, though Saddam has a head start on other sectarian leaders. The Republican Guard, even if dressed as civilians, will immediately join his side. Just about the entire region in and around Tikrit is solidly behind him. The Ba'ath intelligence service will be prosecuted by the new government and so they have no incentive to just lay down their guns to them; Saddam is the better option...
 
I'm guessing that the loss of Bin Laden will lead to a slightly weakened Al-Qa'ida that backs Saddam's efforts but stays separate. Saddam is not going to just waltz in and take over Al-Qa'ida. Perhaps, the lack of unity might hurt the Islamist cause.
 
I'm guessing that the loss of Bin Laden will lead to a slightly weakened Al-Qa'ida that backs Saddam's efforts but stays separate. Saddam is not going to just waltz in and take over Al-Qa'ida. Perhaps, the lack of unity might hurt the Islamist cause.

Or maybe it gets stronger. If Al-Qaeda and Ba'ath choose to engage in a marriage of convenience, Al-Qaeda gets access to the intelligence of the Ba'ath resistance which should help the organisation to better plan and coordinate its efforts in Iraq.
 
In some places, like Al-Anbar, the insurgency actually became stronger after Saddam was captured, as some people were initially unwilling to join an insurgency they thought would help to bring back Saddam and co. While former Baathists were obviously a problem for coalition forces in Iraq, things didn't get really bad until a more broad based Sunni insurgency started up.

This COULD have the effect of preventing widespread ethnic violence in Iraq. The Baathists did not go out of their way to target the Shiia and spark a civil war like Zarqawi did. So no Golden Dome bombing. So the insurgency would be much smaller and concentrated around an explicitly Pro-Saddam Baathist remnant.

In this situation Iran and the Gulf states would both still be vying for influence in post-war Iraq, but, because widespread ethnic violence never broke out, their funding is focused mainly on political influence and on influencing the Kurds onto one side or the other in order to tip the balance. Less of those advanced IEDs and other arms.

It would be interesting to see if Osama's death would have a reverse effect in Afghanistan. With the loss of Osama would more Afghan people be willing to fight ISAF troops? "The Americans have destroyed Al-Qaeda, why are they still here?" Would more join the Taliban? Or would another group? Possibly an explicitly Pashtun group that unites more Pashtuns against the ISAF?

Also, if America finds Osama in Pakistan in similarly comfortable circumstances as OTL, what effect does that have on US relations with Musharraf? Could things sour earlier than OTL? Could the ISI increase aid the Taliban, or a theoretical seperate Pashtun insurgency, if the US increases pressure on Pakistan?
 
Top