What if Iraq was invaded after the gulf war?

[Marc Anthony]

The US military and State Department literally have sections dedicated to planning such operations, that's their entire job and they (again literally) wrote the book(s) on how and what to do.



Military and civilian agencies who's job it is to prepare and flesh out contingency operations based on current requirements, information and resources. If implemented as planned and supported by political will then yes the plans were likely realistic and achievable.

But as you yourself said, wether or not those plans are adhered to is something else.

Also, professionals can also make mistakes, especially in war, with many examples of that. And sith all do respect, i've met plenty of state department people who were completely ignorant of where they were posted.

Long term occupation is something the US does not do well and the 'goal' is always to reach a point where the "government" is stable and friendly enough to allow a major reduction in forces.

Yes, and the problem is, you are going to get foreign fighters coming in which could cause the Americans to prolong the occupation until they are dealt with (which was likely unachievable).

Didn’t know they were that dead set against regime change, why is that? Were the Syrians agianst it? And I can see why the Turks would be against it thought. And in this scenario the coalition is for it. Maybe Bush Sr made good arguments or coerced everyone to support an invasion and take part.

Assad (Hafez) was until the Gulf War in the Soviet camp, and joined the war for his own motives. Now, put yourself in his shoes: you are the ruler of a country that for two decades was alied with the US's rival, Saddam was a dictator who who was toppled with his expansionism being cited as the cause. You yourself are a dictator who conquered Lebanon and now the Americans are at your border, who's to say that toppeling Saddam didn't give them any ideas about toppeling you?

then basically with the other Arab partners, it's one thing to help defend an Arab state, it's entirely different to join a non Arab state in invading and occupying Arabs. Many of those regimes were unpopular at home anyway, this could doom some of them.

and about coercion, it could work in the short term, but it can needlessly antagonize said alies and turn them against you.

 

[Hastings]

As noted the politics were the problem, but if that is overcome or Hussan's regime falls apart at the seams. The rough rule of thumb suggested for counterinsurgency is 20 soldiers per thousand people.

In 2003, that would suggest 480,000 men needed. Initial invasion force was 309,000, and occupation forces averaged about 150,000. Now most of the resistance was in the Sunni Arab areas, but it is doubtful during the 2nd Gulf War that the US got close to 20/1000 in those areas outside the troop surge and not perhaps coincidently, the troop surge helped things on the military front.

In 1991, Iraqi population was much lower, 20/1000 would require 340,000 men (though of course, probably don't need that level everywhere, since, say, the Kurds were not hostile). The invasion force was nearly a million men including 700,000 Americans.

Basically the problem was Bush Junior tried to do what his father 'failed' to do, but he did it with an ersatz version of his father's army. It is far from clear that saved either lives or money cumulatively, a sort of penny wise, pound foolish dynamic. Conventional phase went fine, but that is because the US is the most dominate military power in world history and could defeat even so-called major world powers with a hand tied behind its back if it needed to (though nicely enough the supposed 2nd-most powerful military, Russia, is nice enough to destroy itself on its own initiative).

 

[M79]

Instead of overt invasion, could Iran decide to export their revolution and push for a Shi'a state based out of Baghdad?

 

[Gillan1220]

Instead of overt invasion, could Iran decide to export their revolution and push for a Shi'a state based out of Baghdad?

I think Iran would try to influence the local politics of Southern Iraq, which is mostly populated by Shia Muslims.

 

[RanulfC]

China offered to take part? That’s not something I’d of ever expected lol. Was that really feasible for them im 1991? And I know that they’d need to have prepared for such an invasion. You can’t just invade on a dime, it’s gotta be prepared. They’d need to get ready for it and all I know. How wild the iraqi military have fared once the invasion began? Or how would they compare against the Iraqi military of 2003 when we invaded? At least in ‘91 they had a plan for what came next based on what you say. That would definitely help post invasion and hopefully mean a much less volatile occupation. I’ll touch on bush below since no need to repeat lol.

They said they had 2 divisions of troops ready to go they just needed transportation and support. Neither of which anyone was willing to provide

Why the hell was that done after ‘03 anyways? Why would they disband them and not just use them and reform them? I’d imagine keeping them going in a post ‘91 invasion would help?

They were told to, again it was a political decision and very much against what the military wanted.

I kinda disagree here, don’t you think an even more decisive victory might have enough butterfly’s to shift the election his way? I know that it almost certainly wouldn’t change domestic issues. But ive seen it be said that people thought Bush was unbeatable after his victory in Iraq and some democrats decided to stick it out and wait for ‘96. Maybe this causes Clinton to stick out? Maybe prevent a few gaffs. Perhaps keep Ross Perot out? Or at least give him enough of a talking point to edge out a win? Idk. Would be interesting.

It was assumed that he was unbeatable due to the Gulf War but it quickly became apparent that it wasn't true because of both his domestic issues and the Gulf War being seen as mostly his ONLY success which was a major problem. The initial intention was for the Democrats to sit it out but as noted they found a means to make it a fight and they went for it. It might be possible that a 'total' victory might change this but I have my doubts as the basic issues are still there and will come out.

Always great reading what you have to say!

Hey who doesn't live for internet validation?

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

But as you yourself said, whether or not those plans are adhered to is something else.

True but at least there IS a plan which would be a major difference

Also, professionals can also make mistakes, especially in war, with many examples of that. And with all do respect, i've met plenty of state department people who were completely ignorant of where they were posted.

Can't really argue but in general (and specifically the GWII "Powers-that-Be") it's something to note that none of them before or after even bothered to ask any actual experts ON the region to generate any input. Once others got into power they generally DID ask but at that point the damage had been done.

Yes, and the problem is, you are going to get foreign fighters coming in which could cause the Americans to prolong the occupation until they are dealt with (which was likely unachievable).

Which OTL was because of the lack of cohesion and general chaos after the invasion. It happened both in Afghanistan and Iraq both.

Assad (Hafez) was until the Gulf War in the Soviet camp, and joined the war for his own motives. Now, put yourself in his shoes: you are the ruler of a country that for two decades was alied with the US's rival, Saddam was a dictator who who was toppled with his expansionism being cited as the cause. You yourself are a dictator who conquered Lebanon and now the Americans are at your border, who's to say that toppeling Saddam didn't give them any ideas about toppeling you?

then basically with the other Arab partners, it's one thing to help defend an Arab state, it's entirely different to join a non Arab state in invading and occupying Arabs. Many of those regimes were unpopular at home anyway, this could doom some of them.

and about coercion, it could work in the short term, but it can needlessly antagonize said alies and turn them against you.

Yup.

Randy

 

[stodge]

It's an interesting scenario but it requires a very different mindset in Washington and elsewhere.

For all the Americans wanted Saddam out of Kuwait, the best was to leave them in power but neutered militarily - the alternatives seemed unpredictable at best and downright dangerous at worst, Washington feared, in the absence of a powerful central authority, Iraq would fragment with separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shia states emerging from the wreckage.

Any independent Kurdish state was going to be problematic for both Turkey and Syria as it would provide something to galvanise their own Kurdish dissidents. The idea of a Shia state in the south, potentially if not actually pro-Iranian, terrified the Americans and the Kuwaitis. The residual Sunni state would likely be highly unstable with Baghdad himself becoming a war zone as had so many other divided cities before it.

The arguments for keeping Saddam in situ outweighed those for his removal to be blunt so when the risings happened in the south and elsewhere, Washington resolved not only not to help or support them but to ensure they ultimately failed.

So, a different mindset in Washington - perhaps there might be a sense the Iraqi Shia wouldn't be pro-Tehran and indeed could be valuable allies.

The other Arab members of the coalition are persuaded to support the Marsh Arabs in their rising so American and coalition troops sweep into southern Iraq in early March supporting the anti-Saddam dissidents who manage to take Basra and a string of other cities before the middle of the month including Karbala and Nasariyah. A loose coalition of anti-Saddam army officers and anti-Baath political opposition parties forms a new Government in Basra on March 16th 1991 proclaiming a new Shia Republic.

In the north, the Kurds take advantage of the situation in the south to pour out of the mountains and seize Mosul and Kirkuk proclaiming the new Kurdish Republic in March 12th.

With the Americans advancing from the south, Saddam Hussein panics and flees with his sons for Tikrit leaving the city virtually undefended and the first American tanks enter in triumph on March 18th 1991. Saddam's ostentatious lifestyle is quickly discovered and filmed for posterity before his palaces are looted by vengeful mobs.

Much of central Iraq falls into anarchy and confusion as Baath and other authority figures melt away. It will be months before a new Republic of Iraq is formed by which time tens of thousands will have died in internecine fighting in Baghdad, Fallujah and other cities.

 

[Monk78]

I think Iran would try to influence the local politics of Southern Iraq, which is mostly populated by Shia Muslims.

Yes
And a hard no from saudis too who would be too wary of a resurgent Iran

 

[Gillan1220]

Yes
And a hard no from saudis too who would be too wary of a resurgent Iran

This would mean an earlier tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran, compared to ours which only intensified in the 2010s.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Hussain Kamil, the oil Minister for iraq, defected a few years later. Could a compromise have been made where Saddam Hussein is overthrown but he is placed in power instead? Admittedly this is more likely if former President Bush is assassinated in early 1993 during his visit to kuwait. And I don't know if Kamil was this disenchanted yet as he would be a few years later.

But, as little as I know about him except the fact he did defect, he sure seems a whole lot more sensible than Saddam and his sons.

 

[ahmedali]

We need a completely different Gulf War

You must need to make Saddam invade Saudi Arabia directly after Kuwait, and this makes all Arabs turn against Saddam completely (even neutral countries such as Yemen, Tunisia, Algeria and Jordan)

And they decide to overthrow the Baath Party completely

 

[ahmedali]

Hussain Kamil, the oil Minister for iraq, defected a few years later. Could a compromise have been made where Saddam Hussein is overthrown but he is placed in power instead? Admittedly this is more likely if former President Bush is assassinated in early 1993 during his visit to kuwait. And I don't know if Kamil was this disenchanted yet as he would be a few years later.

But, as little as I know about him except the fact he did defect, he sure seems a whole lot more sensible than Saddam and his sons.

Hussein Kamel has a problem

How will he deal with Saddam's clan (unless he blows up Tikrit and makes his massacre double Dujail) who want blood?

He needs to stage a coup in vain that kills Saddam's entire family (including his wife and sister-in-law who is Saddam Kamel's wife, Saddam Hussein's daughters).

So there are problems that need to be solved to make this scenario possible

 

[oca2073]

The fundamental Shi-Sunni divide isn't going away. The Kurds in this scenario are more emboldened, they may make a break for independence. The entire coalition would fall apart, the Sunni Arab powers would be outraged that a Shiite Iraqi govt would be emerging and they would fund the Sunnis to cause trouble and supposing the Shiite govt rules in a majoritarian way, Sunni Arabs will be flooding into Iraq to become terrorists like OTL.

Iran on the other hand was just recently attacked by Iraq and subsequently tried to take over Iraq themselves. As soon as coalition powers move out, they will renew their attempts to influence the new Iraqi govt. But even while US forces are in Iraq, expect more support and weapons for Shiite militias than even OTL causing yet more headaches for Baghdad.

The only good thing is that more troops will be on hand which MAY result in better security. But with Saddam not discredited after 10+ years of sanctions, poverty, and oppression, it's likely he will have a lot more loyalists fighting for his legacy and fuelling the insurgency.

My take: It will be bloodier and more costly than OTL.

 

[Intosh]

What if instead of stopping when Iraq was forced out of Kuwait snd beaten the US and Coalition forces invaded iraq? How feasible is this? What would happen if the invasion occured? How would iraq handle under an invasion and how would the war go? Would it be like the Iraq war or no? And what changes would this have going forward? For example what would happen to the Kurds or the ‘92 election for example?

I think that given the coalition’s overwhelming fire power and Iraq’s army being devastated that it should be an easy win, but I’m not sure if there’d be an insurgency this time. I think if the Kurds rise up they could at the least be rewarded with autonomy like they achieved iotl but not sure about an independent state. And if the war is clean at decisive I think it could give Bush Sr a boost to possibly win as well as enough other butterflies to allow him to win in 92. Although these are my thoughts what do y’all think?

The Arabs countries don't want Irak weakened because they feared Shia and Iranian rising in influence.

Basically Saudi Arabia said no...

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Wouldn't it risk major dissent in the coalition? It's one thing agreeing to fight in support of a UN- endorsed cause to free an invaded country, but quite another thing to then invade another sovereign state.

No one (not counting fringe extremists) faults the Allies for invading Germany even after the Wehrmacht had been pushed out of all the countries they'd invaded. Also unlike in 2003 Saddam Hussein had and used biochemical weapons in the 1990s.

For all the Americans wanted Saddam out of Kuwait, the best was to leave them in power but neutered militarily - the alternatives seemed unpredictable at best and downright dangerous at worst, Washington feared, in the absence of a powerful central authority, Iraq would fragment with separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shia states emerging from the wreckage.

Any independent Kurdish state was going to be problematic for both Turkey and Syria as it would provide something to galvanise their own Kurdish dissidents. The idea of a Shia state in the south, potentially if not actually pro-Iranian, terrified the Americans and the Kuwaitis. The residual Sunni state would likely be highly unstable with Baghdad himself becoming a war zone as had so many other divided cities before it.

I can see why the Turks and Syrians wouldn't want a Kurdistan, but I doubt that is the reason the USA didn't press on.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

No one (not counting fringe extremists) faults the Allies for invading Germany even after the Wehrmacht had been pushed out of all the countries they'd invaded. Also unlike in 2003 Saddam Hussein had and used biochemical weapons in the 1990s.

I can see why the Turks and Syrians wouldn't want a Kurdistan, but I doubt that is the reason the USA didn't press on.

The UN resolution authorised forcing Iraq out of Kuwait but did not authorise conquest of Iraq [1]. The coalition members joined with that in mind - freeing Kuwait was a just and valid goal that pretty much anyone could buy into.
Overstepping the resolution changes the coalition from liberators preserving the world order into invaders threating the integrity of a sovereign state. This rather defeats the point of a UN resolution.


[1]Ah, the good old days, when people cared about such things.

 

[HelloThere]

An invasion to topple Saddam would have been a deal-breaker for the Soviet Union. Even a 'moderate' like Gorbachev supported the liberation of Kuwait, not overthrowing Hussein and turning Iraq into an American client state.

 

[PickledFish]

The last act the US did in the Gulf War was send in stealth bombers to where they believed Saddam was and bomb the shit out of it, but obviously he wasn't at the location they thought he was. If Saddam had been killed, the Ba'ath Party could've fallen into infighting and eventually splintered apart. An international coalition could've gone in as peacekeepers ala Bosnia in the event of a civil war.

Short of something like that though, I view a 1991 invasion to be out of the question for all the reasons Cheney spoke of - no one was willing to go in with them.

 

[Basils]

You don’t see anything changing despite a different administration, a significantly larger coalition, and much different situation in comparison to 2003?

I agree. There would be more and a broader occupying force. Which mixed with less jihad would probably lead to more security and more stability. You’d probably get multiple green zones within a year.

 

[HelloThere]

I agree. There would be more and a broader occupying force.

Based on what? The fact that the coalition members pull out because they didn't want to topple Saddam? How does that generate a a broader occupying force? Dick Cheney himself was against an occupation of Iraq in 1991 and he isn't known to be a dove.