The USA supported the 1991 Uprisings in Iraq

kernals12

Banned
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
NATO will probably have other ideas.
 

kernals12

Banned
Why would they when they don't have any strategic interests, no overland access even if successfully, no bases to launch operations, and permanently destroying relations with the key NATO member Turkey.
How about Saudi Arabia? They hate Iran, Iraq, and Syria. I'm sure they'd be supportive of the Kurdish cause.
 

kernals12

Banned
Neither of those ruined relations with a key NATO member and both have friendly access via Croatia and Albania.
If Turkey were to support an all-out genocide against the Kurds, they probably wouldn't be a member of NATO for long, especially since its the 90s and nobody's really worrying about Russian subs getting through the Bosporous.
 
If Turkey were to support an all-out genocide against the Kurds,
At worst you'd have a some ethnic cleansing and some massacres. Kurds make up 20% of Iraq and are internal divided. Also NATO did allow the Kurds to be massacred or expelled twice by Saddam , Bosnians to be massacred by Serbs and Croats for 3 years, and Tutsi massacred by the Hutus.

they probably wouldn't be a member of NATO for long
Having a member leave and become an enemy. Is not good for NATO's credibility especially when the question should what to do without the Reds is bubbling. Also France did support the Hutus in their genocide and nothing happen .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_France_in_the_Rwandan_genocide
 

kernals12

Banned
At worst you'd have a some ethnic cleansing and some massacres. Kurds make up 20% of Iraq and are internal divided. Also NATO did allow the Kurds to be massacred or expelled twice by Saddam , Bosnians to be massacred by Serbs and Croats for 3 years, and Tutsi massacred by the Hutus.
I guess it all depends on when Iraq chooses to attack Kurdistan. Bill Clinton was stung by Rwanda, and it led to his determination to halt the slaughter of the Bosniaks and prevent the slaughter of the Kosovars. So if it happens after 1994, there's a good chance NATO will not let it slide. And any war against Iraqi Kurdistan will be bloody. The region is mountainous and favors the defender. If the Iraqis try to starve out the Kurds, then that would be genocide.
 

kernals12

Banned
Why would they when they don't have any strategic interests, no overland access even if successfully, no bases to launch operations, and permanently destroying relations with the key NATO member Turkey.
A total blockade of Kurdistan would mean cutting off the flow of oil from there. That seems like a strategic interest.
 
So if it happens after 1994, there's a good chance NATO will not let it slide.
Why wait until then also as shown by Rojava and Iraqi Kurdistan with it being beaten into them in 2017. It's best to just to maintain de-facto independent while claiming to be a part of Iraq or Syria. No or lesser degree of hostile neighbors and no need for armed conflict .

So if it happens after 1994, there's a good chance NATO will not let it slide.
Still would make Turkey an enemy

The region is mountainous and favors the defender. If the Iraqis try to starve out the Kurds, then that would be genocide.
Iraq doesn't have overrun the whole region. most likely outcome would to be similar to otl where Iraq take large part of Kurdistan with help of friendly Kurdish factions and negotiates for an autonomous zone in the remainder. Also they don't have stop food or water shipment only that of Arms and Ammo.

A total blockade of Kurdistan would mean cutting off the flow of oil from there. That seems like a strategic interest.
As shown by the sanctions on Iraq. NATO is not depend on Kurdish or oil in the rest of Iraq.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
NATO will probably have other ideas.
NATO has no other ideas, because believe it or not NATO is not a collection of American puppet states and Turkey will veto any NATO involvement.
If the Iraqis try to starve out the Kurds, then that would be genocide.
If Turkey is supporting it then America will give as many shits as it does about Saudi Arabia starving and bombing Yemen to death: zero.
 
The US gets a pro-Western democratic Iraq rather than a pro-Iranian one. Shiites being pro-Iranian is largely a product of the US leaving them to die when they were revolting against the Saddam regime. You also are not gonna have a massive insurgency after Saddam falls where insurgents have regime weapons, considering that the Faith Campaign only started in 1993. You'll still have Saddam loyalists conducting an insurgency, but you're not gonna have Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia running around with weapons from the Saddam regime.

All in all, supporting the 1991 uprisings means that Iraq is much better off today and much more friendly to the US considering that the US hasn't stabbed them in the back ITTL.
 
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.

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.

Sorry for replying again after almost a month but, truth is, many of the Iraqi rebels in 1991 weren't Shia Islamists, many of them were, just, army defectors, including Sunnis, who were tired of Saddam and the endless wars. There even were some Baathists who were tired of Saddam. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq. I highly doubt there would be any Shia revolutionary government. What do you think, now?
 
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.

Except political reality supercedes sentiment, Turkey would raise hell and seeing as Ankara is vital to us in the region, I don't think Washington would let the KRG achieve independence....we stayed on the sidelines when Barzani tried to secede after all.
 
Sorry for replying again after almost a month but, truth is, many of the Iraqi rebels in 1991 weren't Shia Islamists, many of them were, just, army defectors, including Sunnis, who were tired of Saddam and the endless wars. There even were some Baathists who were tired of Saddam. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq. I highly doubt there would be any Shia revolutionary government. What do you think, now?
I'd add that if a Shia revolutionary government does come into power, it'd be a pro-US one. The US has just helped them overthrow Saddam, after all.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
I'd add that if a Shia revolutionary government does come into power, it'd be a pro-US one. The US has just helped them overthrow Saddam, after all.
If the US actually matches into the country, keeps the peace and territorial integrity, and managed an effective reconstruction process that doesn’t step on too many toes, then sure. If it just drops some bombs then goes home and declares Mission Accomplished®️, then the Iraqi Shiites will turn to Iran sooner or later.
 
If the US actually matches into the country, keeps the peace and territorial integrity, and managed an effective reconstruction process that doesn’t step on too many toes, then sure. If it just drops some bombs then goes home and declares Mission Accomplished®️, then the Iraqi Shiites will turn to Iran sooner or later.
They don't have to do any of that. All that's necessary is to enforce a no fly zone, and let the Shiites actually march to Baghdad. They controlled most of Iraq anyway before Saddam sent in the aircraft.
 
Top