The USA supported the 1991 Uprisings in Iraq

BigBlueBox

Banned
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.
Nobody is arguing against the claim that the rebels would win with air support alone. It’s the aftermath that matters. Look at Libya today for an example of what happens when a government is destroyed and nobody steps in to construct a new one. Some kind of second civil war or mass purges and return to autocracy is all but guaranteed without an occupation force.
 

Ian_W

Banned
Nobody is arguing against the claim that the rebels would win with air support alone. It’s the aftermath that matters. Look at Libya today for an example of what happens when a government is destroyed and nobody steps in to construct a new one. Some kind of second civil war or mass purges and return to autocracy is all but guaranteed without an occupation force.

In the case of Iraq, it'll be democracy (because al-Sistani thinks dictatorships are hated by God), and that means a pro-Iranian Shi'ite government.
 

Ian_W

Banned
I doubt it'd be pro-Iran, given that al-Sistani isn't very fond of the Iranian mullahs.

While this is true, part of the point of al-Sistiani rejecting the Government of the Jurisprudent is that it's the elected government that decides how closely Iraq cooperates with the Mullahs in Tehran, not al-Sistani.

But it's "pro" rather than "puppet" :)
 
I do not see a Pro-Iranian Iraq coming about at all given this is three years after 1988 as well as the fact the IOTL events of 1991 have been avoided.
 

Ian_W

Banned
I do not see a Pro-Iranian Iraq coming about at all given this is three years after 1988 as well as the fact the IOTL events of 1991 have been avoided.

If you'd learned anything from the history of the opposition to the Ba'ath Party and their sojourns in Iran, or indeed about the Sunni-Shi'a split, or Iraqi demographics, then you'd know why any democratic government post-Saddam is going to be pro-Iranian.

Only delusional fucktards who made shit up (hi Ahmed Chalabi ! Hello Ibrahim, King of Mosul !) thought otherwise.
 
If you'd learned anything from the history of the opposition to the Ba'ath Party and their sojourns in Iran, or indeed about the Sunni-Shi'a split, or Iraqi demographics, then you'd know why any democratic government post-Saddam is going to be pro-Iranian.

Only delusional fucktards who made shit up (hi Ahmed Chalabi ! Hello Ibrahim, King of Mosul !) thought otherwise.

As has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, that’s all largely a product of events after OTL 1991; the fact the U.S. abandoned the revolt combined with Saddam’s faith campaigns.
 

Ian_W

Banned
As has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, that’s all largely a product of events after OTL 1991; the fact the U.S. abandoned the revolt combined with Saddam’s faith campaigns.

Read what I wrote.

Then think about the demographic dominance of the Shi'a in Iraq.

And the fact the entire Shi'a political leadership hid out in Iran.

And the trade and other friendly links that have happened between Iran and Iraq since, well, Cyrus the Great if not earlier.

And compare that to Saddam's faith campaigns and the OTL decision to not support the Shi'a revolt the US call for ... and you'll realise that, as far as the Shi'a are concerned, both are dust upon the wind.

And, as far as modern Iraq goes, what al-Sistani wants, al-Sistani gets. And he wants regular elections, where the mass of the people get to support or oppose thier government, because tyranny is hated by God and regular elections show a government whether it is a tyranny, hated by God, or not.
 
How about Saudi Arabia? They hate Iran, Iraq, and Syria. I'm sure they'd be supportive of the Kurdish cause.
Absolutely not.
1) A Kurdish state is going to be secular, republican and at least on paper democratic. Multi-faith, multi-ethnic. Quite possibly somewhat left-leaning, though this will have to be toned down to keep some US support (which is the only realistic lifeline). All of this undermines a lot of the legitimacy of the Saudi State simply by existing.
2) (Less important) A Kurdish state is going to be, well, Kurdish, at least to some extent. As opposed, among other things, to "Arab". Saudi Arabia is not particularly big about Arabic nationalism, but it still commits to some idea of Arabness. Carving out land (oil-rich land) from an Arab state to create a non-Arab one is not going to fly very well in Riyadh.
 
I doubt it'd be pro-Iran, given that al-Sistani isn't very fond of the Iranian mullahs.

Agreed. Any democracy in Iraq is going to see a degree of Shi'i dominance, but, especially in the nineties, Iranian alignment is unlikely. Also, sectarian divides were a lot less sharp at the time.
 
Absolutely not.
1) A Kurdish state is going to be secular, republican and at least on paper democratic. Multi-faith, multi-ethnic. Quite possibly somewhat left-leaning, though this will have to be toned down to keep some US support (which is the only realistic lifeline). All of this undermines a lot of the legitimacy of the Saudi State simply by existing.
2) (Less important) A Kurdish state is going to be, well, Kurdish, at least to some extent. As opposed, among other things, to "Arab". Saudi Arabia is not particularly big about Arabic nationalism, but it still commits to some idea of Arabness. Carving out land (oil-rich land) from an Arab state to create a non-Arab one is not going to fly very well in Riyadh.

Despite all those ideological differences, Saudi Arabia is currently supporting the YPG, in Syria. However, it could be argued that the current geopolitical situation is very different from that of 1991.
 
Despite all those ideological differences, Saudi Arabia is currently supporting the YPG, in Syria. However, it could be argued that the current geopolitical situation is very different from that of 1991.
Supporting? I think that "tolerating" is a better word. But I am willing to see different sources.
 
What’s the impact on the 1992 election?

Bush wins. The public is focused on what their boys are doing in Iraq for at least a year longer then OTL which keeps the media focus off the recession.

We would have to occupy parts of Iraq if we call them peacekeepers are not it really doesn’t matter because there won’t be much resistance.
 
Top