Seeds of Hope: What if the Allies had Occupied Southern Iraq in 1991? (Part 1)

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Sorry, Chris, but this one simply doesn't track.

Saddam and Iraq never negiotiated at the end of Desert Storm, they were presented an offer and it was a take it or leave it. Schwartzkopf got snookered into allowing the Iraqis to fly armed helos (supposedly to fly officials around), but that was about it. If the Iraqis refused the cease-fire terms, which required them to accept the UN Resolutions, including those about Weapons Inspectors, the Coalition started back up and destroyed the rest of the Republican Guard. Saddam couldn't afford to have the RG wiped out since it was his power base resulting in acceptance of the terms.

There was ZERO political support of an Iraq occupation in the U.S. It was very much a feeling of "we came, we saw, we kicked their ass, it's Miller Time!" across the U.S. A few people in the U.S. would have been devoutly happy to see Saddam on the end of a rope (me, for one), but nobody, especially the U.S. military, wanted anything to do with an occupation. The War had been sold on freeing Kuwait, period. Push the bully back into his yard with a good ass-kicking & go home. That was what Congress (not the tame version that Bush 43 had to work with) had approved and what the American people were ready to accept. As soon as U.S. forces started to suffer losses during an occupation the public had never agreed to, support would have evaporated like, well, it has for the 2003 invasion.

Unlike the later 2003 debacle, the U.S. had an exit strategy in 1991 and it took it. The U.S., along with the UK (and Turkey, without whom the missions would have been impossible) had Saddam nicely contained, even after the helo screw-up, to the Duchy of Bahgdad with Northern Watch and the less completely successful, but still very effective, Southern Watch Operations. Until Bush 43 decided to go after Saddam (for reasons that seemed then, and REALLY seem now, to be more personal than strategic) Saddam was a joke, Castro without a shot of rum.

What happens in this scenario to the moderate Arab states (outside of the Saudis) that supported the Coalition? Why, they get overthrown of course for supporting a Western INVASION and occupation of an Arab State (and without the Saudi oil money to keep paying their troops, that overthrow is easier than anyone would expect.)

The idea that the U.S., regardless of who is POTUS, would permit IRAN (IRAN????) to openly support a revolution in either Southern Iraq or SAUDI ARABIA (what is the figure, 40% of the world's oil in the region) is less likely than an invasion of Uganda by The Greys. Zero probability.

Prior to 9/11 about the only thing most Americans agreed on in the Middle East, besides that Israel is America's ally (I know, I know, but that is the belief) was that Iran was run by a bunch of crazies who had to be kept bottled up. NOT reacting to any Iranian move would be political suicide, regardless of whose in office.

Allowing a revolution that would unseat the House of Saud? Almost as unlikely. The Saudis have, quite successfully, greased more than enough palms on BOTH sides of the aisle to ensure that their political support in the U.S. (and for that matter, the rest of the West) is unshakable.

As far as media reports of protesters getting shot, for every piece of tape showing that, 15 pieces would appear showing the atrocities committed by the rebels (What atrocities? Give us a minute and we'll whip some up for ya', crying mutilated little kids no extra charge) The media in the West responds to their collective God like the devout little followers they are; unfortunately, that God's name is MONEY, not, as one would be led to believe, Truth. Without doubt, a quite molten pot of lead awaits much of the House of Saud in the afterlife, but overthrown, while it keeps the oil flowing and the price reasonable (or will as soon as a few troublemakers get scragged) not a chance.

This plow won't scour.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Interrseting, but probably not likely. THe US had no interrests in occupying parts of Iraq in 1991. Also there was a real fear of Iran, and I suspect thet had something to do with the US unwillingness to do anything more than free and protect Kuwait.
 
Does the US break the Iranian "air bridge"?

If so, that could mushroom into a shooting war. Of course, I don't think Iran has the advanced missiles that it does today, so the dangers of a Persian Gulf Massacre of the U.S. Fleet are greatly reduced.
 
The problem is that this also causes the religious fundamentalist class in Iran to gain even more power. President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani who was elected in 1989, was considered a moderate by his people a reformer. The fact that he intentionally avoided conflict with the United States, was based on the idea, that the United States wouldn't place troops for a long term period on "Islamic homelands". This immediately prevents any future reforms by President Mohammad Khatami starting in 1997 to 2005. But it also opens the way for someone like Seyyed Ali Khamene'i to launch a political crackdown using the Revolutionary Guard and the Expediency Council in Tehran to overturn Rafsanjani's refoorms.
 
OBL was mostly unknown in the West until after the attacks on the US Embassies in Africa. He was named by some sources as being partly responsible for the attacks on the US in Mogadishu, and also for being connected to the first WTC bombing. (Hmmm...does said bombing happen in this TL?) His family was a bit better known, but even then, they were still obscure, mostly known for Salem's crash and providing the startup funds for James Bath to put into Arbusto.
 
Top