US invasion of Iraq in late 90s?

[AT0N]

Ok, my scenario revolves around a "90s War on terror" setting where the main PoD is the successful 1993 WTC bombing. In 1993, US invades Sudan which hosted Al-Qaeda at the time.

Let's say that in the second half of 1990s another major terrorist attack occures in US or UK. Clinton or Major/Blair connects it with Saddam and they decide to invade Iraq .

My question is how much different Clinton's invasion of Iraq would have been from the OTL one? The most intriguing question here is Kurds: would Clinton give them a Kosovo-style solution or he is too wary of angering Turkey? Or could he create a Kurd-dominated pro-US Iraqi government instead of Shia-dominated one ( I am primarly referring to this group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_National_Congress )?

And I wonder how much this could affect Turkey considering that 1995 general election saw the rise of Erbakan's islamists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Turkish_general_election

In 1997, Erbakan stepped down because military threatened to coup him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Turkish_military_memorandum ...

 

[Gillan1220]

Good scenario. I don't think AQ was the perpetrator of the 1993 WTC bombing. Ramzi Yousef was just the nephew of KSM, who was a member of AQ but he himself isn't one (or at least has no known connections to OBL). Another curious scenario is with a U.S. invasion of Sudan in 1993, this would butterfly the Blackhawk Down incident in Somalia later that year?

Clinton's invasion of Iraq would probably mirror a mix of Bush Sr.'s plan of invading the country. The plan never pushed through, so it's hard to tell. Any chance Bush Jr. followed his father's plans in 2003? I need to read that up. We might see a Kurdish state in the north. Yes, Turkey would be annoyed by this.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

In the late 90s, Hussein really did have biochemical weapons, so there would be no scandal about fake intelligence reports on fake WMDs.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

Bush might win even harder in 2000, since the Republicans would be dunking on Clinton's military budget cuts for the US performance in the 90s Iraq war.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

Does this scenario assume that the 1990-1 Gulf War already happened, or does this invasion replace that conflict entirely?

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Bush might win even harder in 2000, since the Republicans would be dunking on Clinton's military budget cuts for the US performance in the 90s Iraq war.

I think the Democrats would be hitting back over Bush I not removing Saddam from power during the first Gulf War.

 

[AT0N]

Does this scenario assume that the 1990-1 Gulf War already happened, or does this invasion replace that conflict entirely?

Everything before 1993 is the same as OTL.

 

[AT0N]

Good scenario. I don't think AQ was the perpetrator of the 1993 WTC bombing. Ramzi Yousef was just the nephew of KSM, who was a member of AQ but he himself isn't one (or at least has no known connections to OBL). Another curious scenario is with a U.S. invasion of Sudan in 1993, this would butterfly the Blackhawk Down incident in Somalia later that year?

Clinton's invasion of Iraq would probably mirror a mix of Bush Sr.'s plan of invading the country. The plan never pushed through, so it's hard to tell. Any chance Bush Jr. followed his father's plans in 2003? I need to read that up. We might see a Kurdish state in the north. Yes, Turkey would be annoyed by this.

On Sudan: Basically, chasing Pakistan for Yousef is just way too costly for the US foreign policy, so its very convinient for Washington to tie this to Sudan and AQ. Like, America opposed Bashir, supported South Sudan indepenedence and could have siezed control over oil here. On Somalia: Yea this scenario also implies more US involvement in Somalia and Africa in general (Rwanda).

 

[Sekhmet_D]

My question is how much different Clinton's invasion of Iraq would have been from the OTL one?

All this really hinges on how prepared Saddam would have been to repel an invasion during the late 90s.

I daresay it would have been a bloodier affair, with him being willing to unleash whatever WMDs were in his posession at the time upon the invading troops. For some reason, I also envision him dying in an air raid or committing suicide within the ruins of his headquarters rather than going to ground the way he did IOTL.

 

[AT0N]

All this really hinges on how prepared Saddam would have been to repel an invasion during the late 90s.

I daresay it would have been a bloodier affair, with him being willing to unleash whatever WMDs were in his posession at the time upon the invading troops. For some reason, I also envision him dying in an air raid or committing suicide within the ruins of his headquarters rather than going to ground the way he did IOTL.

Maybe. But my question is more about the plan Clinton would use to Invade (maybe he could do it from Turkey while performing only a fake attack from Kuwait?) and how much different would he handle the post-war Iraq from the political standpoint? Would he be less willing to compromise with pro-Iran shiites and impose more secularist and less popular government with a strong base among ethnic minorities? Or let moderate shiites rule Southern Iraq and make Kurdistan independent?

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

I think the Democrats would be hitting back over Bush I not removing Saddam from power during the first Gulf War.

Bush 2 is not Bush 1, he was able to unite the conservatives in his party and became a popular mainstream conservative governor in Texas just two years after the bitter Republican infighting and subsequent defeat of his father and even earned the endorsement of Ross Perot.

 

[walmart]

make Kurdistan independent?

Not happening

 

[Byzantion]

How would Iran respond ? How would the Shia-Sunnite relations work out ?

 

[Viper91]

I think you'd possibly need to change the outcome of the 1993 WTC bombing. You'd either need Al Queda flunkies to have more resources to actually bring down one or both towers.

Alternatively, same exact resources and terrorists as OTL, just maybe a different target. Maybe the vehicle used in the 1993 bombing gets stuck in traffic or has a flat tire in Times Square or somewhere and whoever's driving decides, "screw it, this crowded street is good enough". Even if no buildings or structures as high profile as the World Trade Center are damaged or destroyed, a different spot entirely somewhere in New York City could on the flip side result in many, many more casualties then the OTL attack.

 

[AT0N]

How would Iran respond ? How would the Shia-Sunnite relations work out ?

Really depends on who the US would put in charge of Iraq. While officially Iran opposed the 2003 invasion in OTL, Iran became one of the main beneficiaries of Saddam's downfall (because Shiites took over new Iraqi governemnt). So, if America under Clinton is going toc reate the same enviroment asBush did OTL, Iran is going to react the same. But if Clinton decides to impose Kurds as the main power base of new Iraq instead of Shiites or ban all islamist parties, Iran would support anti-US Shiite guerillas.

 

[AT0N]

I think you'd possibly need to change the outcome of the 1993 WTC bombing. You'd either need Al Queda flunkies to have more resources to actually bring down one or both towers.

Alternatively, same exact resources and terrorists as OTL, just maybe a different target. Maybe the vehicle used in the 1993 bombing gets stuck in traffic or has a flat tire in Times Square or somewhere and whoever's driving decides, "screw it, this crowded street is good enough". Even if no buildings or structures as high profile as the World Trade Center are damaged or destroyed, a different spot entirely somewhere in New York City could on the flip side result in many, many more casualties then the OTL attack.

Yea, my scenario implies better planing and one Tower collapsing vertically.

 

[thenextgui]

Really depends on who the US would put in charge of Iraq. While officially Iran opposed the 2003 invasion in OTL, Iran became one of the main beneficiaries of Saddam's downfall (because Shiites took over new Iraqi governemnt). So, if America under Clinton is going toc reate the same enviroment asBush did OTL, Iran is going to react the same. But if Clinton decides to impose Kurds as the main power base of new Iraq instead of Shiites or ban all islamist parties, Iran would support anti-US Shiite guerillas.

I think Kurds wanted independence not to control Iraq which would just lead to more tension between Kurds and the majority Arab population.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

I think Kurds wanted independence not to control Iraq which would just lead to more tension between Kurds and the majority Arab population.

Would it really? I would have thought the Arab majority quite content to let the Kurds sit in their own little corner, should the Kurds merely wish for independence and not control of Iraq. A desire to rule the country on the latter's part is what strikes me as more likely to breed conflict.

 

[AT0N]

I think Kurds wanted independence not to control Iraq which would just lead to more tension between Kurds and the majority Arab population.

Yes, but independent Kurdistan would be too risky move for US foreign policy (Turkey). So, building a "united Iraq" with quotas for ethnic minorities in government is compromise Clinton could possibly take.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Yes, but independent Kurdistan would be too risky move for US foreign policy (Turkey). So, building a "united Iraq" with quotas for ethnic minorities in government is compromise Clinton could possibly take.

Kurdistan extends into Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. Independent Iraqi Kurdistan would not go down well with the other three states as it then poses a threat to their territorial integrity since the Irania, Syrian and Turkish Kurds will want to secede to be with their fellow (Iraqi) Kurds.