The USA supported the 1991 Uprisings in Iraq

What if the USA had provided support to the 1991 Uprisings in Iraq? Would Saddam have been overthrown? If so, what would have happened to Iraq?
 
It depends, how far does the support go? Money and weapons? Airstrikes? A ground invasion? Anyhow if Saddam is overthrown, and especially if foreign armies are directly responsible for it, basically the Iraqi Civil War of the 2000s simply happens a decade earlier.
 
Last edited:
We got our answer from the second Iraq War (and the Arab Spring).

No reason to think the result would have been substantially different in 1991.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
We got our answer from the second Iraq War (and the Arab Spring).

No reason to think the result would have been substantially different in 1991.
Saddam getting overthrown by Shiites in 1991 would have a very different outcome than Operation Iraqi Freedom or the Arab Spring in Syria. First of all, Iraq Kurdistan will most likely gain independence or a degree of autonomy so great it is de facto independent - the Shiite revolutionary government can’t take Iraqi Kurdistan back on its own. A new Kurdish state will have massive repercussions on the Middle East. Second of all, this Shiite state will likely fall into the Iranian sphere of influence to a degree far greater than OTL if the United States fails to actively subvert and counter Iran - even if the US does try to stop Iran it might not work.
 
It depends, how far does the support go? Money and weapons? Airstrikes? A ground invasion? Anyhow if Saddam is overthrown, and especially if foreign armies are directly responsible for it, basically the Iraqi Civil War of the 2000s simply happens a decade earlier.

We got our answer from the second Iraq War (and the Arab Spring).

No reason to think the result would have been substantially different in 1991.

Saddam getting overthrown by Shiites in 1991 would have a very different outcome than Operation Iraqi Freedom or the Arab Spring in Syria. First of all, Iraq Kurdistan will most likely gain independence or a degree of autonomy so great it is de facto independent - the Shiite revolutionary government can’t take Iraqi Kurdistan back on its own. A new Kurdish state will have massive repercussions on the Middle East. Second of all, this Shiite state will likely fall into the Iranian sphere of influence to a degree far greater than OTL if the United States fails to actively subvert and counter Iran - even if the US does try to stop Iran it might not work.

I meant support with money, weapons and airstrikes.
While the aftermath wouldn't be a cakewalk, it would be far better than in 2003. In 1991, Al-Qaeda was far smaller than in 2003, it couldn't have carried out such a big insurgency. Iraqis weren't as poor as they hadn't been subject to the sanctions of the 90s. The Sunnis were more secular, as they hadn't been radicalized by Saddam's Faith Campaign of the 90s. The Shias were also more secular and had less ties to Iran, as they hadn't been betrayed by the USA, in the 1991 uprising.
 
I meant support with money, weapons and airstrikes.
While the aftermath wouldn't be a cakewalk, it would be far better than in 2003. In 1991, Al-Qaeda was far smaller than in 2003, it couldn't have carried out such a big insurgency. Iraqis weren't as poor as they hadn't been subject to the sanctions of the 90s. The Sunnis were more secular, as they hadn't been radicalized by Saddam's Faith Campaign of the 90s. The Shias were also more secular and had less ties to Iran, as they hadn't been betrayed by the USA, in the 1991 uprising.

The Shia would be pro-US in the short term because we freed them from Saddam.

The Sunnis might not be radicalized but they'd be very unhappy about losing power.
 
Wasn't there some hesitance due to several of the allies in the region really not wanting to press on with the attack?
 
Wasn't there some hesitance due to several of the allies in the region really not wanting to press on with the attack?

I'm not talking about a ground invasion, I'm talking about giving the Iraqi rebels money and weapons and carrying out airstrikes against the Iraqi Government and its forces.

The Shia would be pro-US in the short term because we freed them from Saddam.

The Sunnis might not be radicalized but they'd be very unhappy about losing power.

The new Iraqi government would, certainly, be dominated by the Shias but I highly doubt, that, the Sunnis would be as mistreated as they were after 2003. I think, that, the Sunnis would still be an influent minority.
 
Last edited:
We did support the Kurdish uprising. Late in the day mind you, but we created the KRG out of it.

I would agree you have to answer the question though how much support. We hand over Iraqi weapons to the Shia who rose up along with a stronger NFZ that includes helicopter gun ships to the South you probably end up with a Shia led confederal region in the South and a Kurdish one to the North both quite friendly to the US.

Without the wealth of Basra to feed the areas Saddam holds they become totally impoverished areas held together by terror. That already happened OTL, but it would be significantly worse here. Eventually there would probably be another war which would unite Iraq into a confederation with long term troubles in the Sunni areas because they would be very religiously radicalized.

If the US instituted a Libya like NFZ then Saddam is toppled, but years of disorder and militias fighting each other until stability is reached assuming Clinton and the international community finally step in some time in the mid 90s.

In 2003 many of the elite in the Sunni community screwed them by tossing in with what people know today as ISIS rather then working in the system for power. Then once they finally worked in the system and won the 2010 election for Allawi you had Biden work with Tehran to give it back to Maliki.

AQ or what people know as ISIS weren’t in existence yet in 1991.

By support, I mean sending money and weapons to the rebels and carrying out airstrikes against Saddam's forces.
 
By support, I mean sending money and weapons to the rebels and carrying out airstrikes against Saddam's forces.

Air strikes against Saddam’s forces would be the winning ticket for a total rebel victory.

What happens after the war depends on how hands on the international community is. Infighting among militias who fought together along with a level of continued Sunni resistance is likely heck the Kurds OTL fought a civil war in the mid 90s. The West is totally hands off we could see a Libya.

But, I don’t think they would be as hands off as Libya. Too much at stake and America wouldn’t want Iran to walk into Basra and become the regional hegemon.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
The Shia would be pro-US in the short term because we freed them from Saddam.

The Sunnis might not be radicalized but they'd be very unhappy about losing power.
If the USA doesn’t send boots on the ground then Iran and its allies will. The Quds force and Hezbollah rolling into Baghdad along with the rebels is going to send a far more powerful message than American air strikes or supplies can.
 
If the USA doesn’t send boots on the ground then Iran and its allies will. The Quds force and Hezbollah rolling into Baghdad along with the rebels is going to send a far more powerful message than American air strikes or supplies can.

Iran didn't do that in our timeline, why would it do so in this timeline?
Regardless, Iran was still far too damaged and weakened from the Iran-Iraq War to do that.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Iran didn't do that in our timeline, why would it do so in this timeline?
Regardless, Iran was still far too damaged and weakened from the Iran-Iraq War to do that.
Iran already sent the Badr Brigades. If the uprising had lasted more than two months and Iraq was still under a complete NFZ and getting bombed by the US they would have sent a lot more.
 
Last edited:

kernals12

Banned
It would accomplish what we wanted in 2003 at a fraction of the cost, plus the Kurds would've gotten the independence that they have long deserved. Seems like a good thing.
 

kernals12

Banned
If the USA doesn’t send boots on the ground then Iran and its allies will. The Quds force and Hezbollah rolling into Baghdad along with the rebels is going to send a far more powerful message than American air strikes or supplies can.
Conveniently, most of Iraq's oil is in... Kurdistan.
 

Ian_W

Banned
It would accomplish what we wanted in 2003 at a fraction of the cost, plus the Kurds would've gotten the independence that they have long deserved. Seems like a good thing.

If you break up Iraq, you'll end up with a largish pro-Iranian shi'ite state in the south, a Kurdistan thats going to go thru a civil war being Barziani and the PKK types and a small, grumpy and vulnerable Sunnistan.

Are you sure thats a good idea for a stable middle east ?
 
It would accomplish what we wanted in 2003 at a fraction of the cost, plus the Kurds would've gotten the independence that they have long deserved. Seems like a good thing.
The neighbors say no. Whatever government comes into being in Iraq will have the unlimited support of it's neighbors in crushing the Kurds. Being landlocked simply cutting off the Arms and Ammo coming in will be a end of an independent Kurdistan
 
Last edited:

kernals12

Banned
If you break up Iraq, you'll end up with a largish pro-Iranian shi'ite state in the south, a Kurdistan thats going to go thru a civil war being Barziani and the PKK types and a small, grumpy and vulnerable Sunnistan.

Are you sure thats a good idea for a stable middle east ?
The Middle East hasn't been stable since the Ottoman Empire broke up. The lack of statehood for the Kurds is one of the biggest tragedies of history.
 
Top