What if the Gulf War never happened?

If we run the points on Papa Doc in Haiti and Suharto in Indonesia, I think we'll find that Saddam Hussein of Iraq is a thoroughly run-of-the-mill dictator.

And I mean this as the scary and bleak conclusion that it is.
 
Hell, U.S. support dried up *during* the war. We gave him just enough to keep him on his feet and prevent him from getting toppled and tapered it off when dangerous moments passed.

Not true.. and a fairly typical piece of American self delusion ..
As I have previously shown US support increased as the Iran Iraq war went on.

It started with open material shipment to Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq initiated hostilities and appeared to have the upper hand.
(though these were supposedly "not for military purposes")

When Iran began to fight back the US dropped accusations of supporting terrorism by Iraq and reestablished diplomatic relations with Iraq (but not Iran).

Critically mid war the US asked for and tried enforcing an embargo of third party weapons purchases by Iran but not Iraq.

Later the US Ignored an Iraqi strike that killed US sailors but seriously attacked and damaged Iranian forces because of a threat to civilian navigation

The same trend continued after the Iran-Iraq ceasefire with US diplomatic moves pro Iraq
despite the fact that Iraq was known to have used Chemical weapons during the war
(and even more extensively against the Kurdish rebels in the same timeframe).

US economic aid was given to Iraq and none even offered to Iran despite the fact they had suffered larger damage and casualties.

And on the eve of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the US ambassador explicitly stated that the US "does not have an opinion on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq" and that the US had no intention "to start an economic war against Iraq"
 
Last edited:

I would encourage you to read through the section on the U.S. reaction to the war, specifically how the Carter administration responded to it (fifth through seventh paragraphs). Their actions in the beginning of the war actually favored Iran more than Iraq. We tried to stop the flow of weapons to Iraq through Jordan, used our diplomatic power to strangle their attempts to widen the war, and stated our opposition to any attempts to dismember Iran. Saddam was actually really pissed about it and accused us in the beginning of enabling "Persian aggression."

The policy only changed to tacit support of Iraq after they withdrew troops from Iranian soil and sued for peace in 1982. The rest of that war was nothing but Khomeini trying to conquer them. Iraq by that point was on the defensive; we weren't enabling anybody's efforts to carve off bits of Iran.

The U.S. only ever aided him to keep him from collapsing and as big of a bastard as he was to put it frankly that was probably the right decision. If Saddam had collapsed all that would have really changed is that another nut would have taken over, and the nut in this case would have been geographically able to project power straight through to Lebanon, the Mediterranean, Israel, and the Arab Gulf States through a contiguous network of friendly allied Shiite countries: Iran to Iraq to Syria. The mess that would have inevitably resulted in virtually boggles the mind.

Everybody involved in that mess sucked, but letting Khomeini take over everything wouldn't have the world a better or more peaceful place.
 
I would encourage you to read through the section on the U.S. reaction to the war, specifically how the Carter administration responded to it (fifth through seventh paragraphs).

Like other apologists for the US you are being very selective in your memory

From the fifth paragraph of the source you cite

the U.S. tolerated the provision of weapons and intelligence fromEgypt to Iraq, in exchange for Iraq's assistance in ending the diplomatic isolation Egypt had endured as a result of its Peace Treaty with Israel. In addition, the U.S. took active steps to make sure that Iraq's ability to export [oil] through the Gulf was unimpaired and could be quickly restored after the cessation of hostilities,

again

In Carter's own account, "I despised Saddam Hussein, because he attacked Iran when my hostages were being held. It was President Reagan who established diplomatic relations with Saddam Hussein after I left office.


and in the section below

The United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq.

so even the source you try to cite to say the US did not support Iraq,
admits to my contention that though there was initial dislike of Iraq there was much greater hatred of Iran
and that before, during and after the Iran-Iraq war there was growing US practical aid to Iraq.

Whether that was a better choice than acknowledging the Iranian revolution as a legitimate uprising
only history will judge ... but it is a fact however much the Americans try to pretend otherwise
 
Last edited:

At no point did I deny the U.S. aided Iraq. My contention is that the overall balance of U.S. actions early on in the war hurt Iraq more than Iran and we only began aiding them when Iran moved the war onto their territory and it looked like they might collapse.

The Egypt thing is a bit of a shame but it was done to shore up the stability and international standing of Sadat's government. The oil thing was purely commerical and doesn't count as support of Saddam's military position. Overall, the balance of the government's actions in the first couple years was against Iraq.

The Iranian Revolution was a reign of terror that killed innocent people by the truckload while attemtping to take one of the Middle East's more advanced countries and drag it back to the 8th century. And they wiped their boots on one of the most sacred norms there is while doing so, diplomatic sanctity. We didn't dislike them for no reason.
 
We didn't dislike them for no reason

LOL Of course not, it was just a coincidence that the regime that they deposed was a US ally
as well as being a murderous facist dictatorship in its own right,

we only began aiding them when Iran moved the war onto their territory

so a sovereign state that has actually been attacked, including with weapons of mass destruction, suffering a million casualties has no right to follow through and attempt to remove the regime that initiated that attack?

Or is the right of regime change restricted to powers that tamper with evidence and lie about their motives ?
 
Last edited:
so a sovereign state that has actually been attacked, including with weapons of mass destruction, suffering a million casualties has no right to follow through and attempt to remove the regime that initiated that attack?

Or is the right of regime change restricted to powers that tamper with evidence and lie about their motives ?
it's perfectly understandable that Iran would try to remove Saddam from power. It's also perfectly understandable that we didn't want that to happen. The idea of Iran conquering it's way around the Gulf and carrying it's fanatical brand of Islam into the major oil producing area of the world was seen as a bad thing, for obvious reasons. When you're dealing with the Middle East in general, there aren't a lot of likeable governments there, but it's better to have quiet unlikable governments that keep the oil moving than a bunch of unlikable fanatic governments that disrupt it. That's realpolitik for ya...
 
Without a Gulf War, Saddam's Iraq becomes a major regional power in the middle east. His military strength continually expands as he buys up cheap ex-soviet arms. He would probably provoke Palestinian terrorism while developing nuclear weapons until his program results in a much publicized nuclear test in the mid 90's resulting in sensationalist Israeli claims of an impending second holocaust.

Possible Iraq/Israel air combat as the Israelis attempt to damage or destroy Iraq's nuclear capability most likely unsuccessfully. Iraq may try to either repair relations with Syria or overthrow Assad. By the 2000's a new Iran-Iraq war could have occurred.
 
The most interesting thing for me about this WI is the international weapons market. Without the gulf war would soviet arms be considered second tier crap in the export market and would Russia and chine launch their modernization canpaignes or would they continue on the path they were on. The second question I have is without the massive superiority in terms of weapons that the gulf war exposed would the west have reduced there armies quite as drastically. There were going to be peace divides from the end of the cold war, but because of the crushing victory obtained during the gulf war my own feeling is that those peace dividens were expanded as it was felt that it was safe to do so.
 
Yes, but we likely retain bigger land forces by several hundred thousand. The Gulf War produced an incredible level of arrogance at the Pentagon in the 90s and on about what they could do with high tech and bombs, but they forgot technology can win battles, but boots hold what you gained.

I doubt that very much. The need to do another Desert Storm was a key argument deployed by the Pentagon and it's Allies in Congress against a larger post war demobilisation. While the overall force might be slightly more traditional with less emphasis on smart everything it will be a smaller force with a significantly smaller budget (10-20%).
 
I doubt that very much. The need to do another Desert Storm was a key argument deployed by the Pentagon and it's Allies in Congress against a larger post war demobilisation. While the overall force might be slightly more traditional with less emphasis on smart everything it will be a smaller force with a significantly smaller budget (10-20%).

The Pentagon and its allies in Congress believed they could do another Desert Storm with half or less of the troops. In a world where Saddam takes Kuwait and we sit on our ass and just institute containment and sanctions they are still going to really see the Iraqi Armed Forces as a near peer not a bantam weight and add to that the threat of NK war and they are going to want an Army at minimum a hundred thousand men stronger.
 
The Pentagon and its allies in Congress believed they could do another Desert Storm with half or less of the troops. In a world where Saddam takes Kuwait and we sit on our ass and just institute containment and sanctions they are still going to really see the Iraqi Armed Forces as a near peer not a bantam weight and add to that the threat of NK war and they are going to want an Army at minimum a hundred thousand men stronger.

The OP is no Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and in the absence of that why would the US institute containment, Saddam was a run of the mill 3rd World Dictator and he certainly wouldn't be regarded as a near peer by the US. In the absence of a Gulf War Saddam would be about as useful as Burma in terms of justifying US military spending.
 
The OP is no Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and in the absence of that why would the US institute containment, Saddam was a run of the mill 3rd World Dictator and he certainly wouldn't be regarded as a near peer by the US. In the absence of a Gulf War Saddam would be about as useful as Burma in terms of justifying US military spending.

Yes, no invasion of Kuwait period is a very different story in that it leaves America containing Iran using Iraq by proxy and of course North Korea.
 
Yes, no invasion of Kuwait period is a very different story in that it leaves America containing Iran using Iraq by proxy and of course North Korea.

The North Korean threat requires a Division and Iran doesn't need any overseas stationed force. A no Gulf War scenario is a smaller US military scenario.
 
The North Korean threat requires a Division and Iran doesn't need any overseas stationed force. A no Gulf War scenario is a smaller US military scenario.

I just said that if it's no invasion of Kuwait period it's a totally different story. You are jumping down my throat over my skimming over the op and thinking it was no US invasion not no Kuwait invasion and you know it after I already agreed with you.
 
That's realpolitik for ya...

exactly my point.

But given that the USA is one of or perhaps even THE elephant in the room, the rest of us had better ignore its repeated childish assertions of "I didn't do it" when caught out exercising that realpolitik
and maintain a healthy skepticism of how far it can be trusted.

Come to think of it, America's own political health could be improved if it's citizens took a massive dose of the same medicine
 
exactly my point.

But given that the USA is one of or perhaps even THE elephant in the room, the rest of us had better ignore its repeated childish assertions of "I didn't do it" when caught out exercising that realpolitik
and maintain a healthy skepticism of how far it can be trusted.

Come to think of it, America's own political health could be improved if it's citizens took a massive dose of the same medicine
I'm not exactly sure what axe you are grinding here, but you seem to be irked about something. Are you mad that the US supported Iraq in the war, and if so, why? What would you have rather seen happen?
The most interesting thing for me about this WI is the international weapons market. Without the gulf war would soviet arms be considered second tier crap in the export market and would Russia and chine launch their modernization canpaignes or would they continue on the path they were on.
IIRC, Soviet arms already were taking a hit because of Israel's invasion of Lebanon, where Israeli planes and tanks took out scads of Russian T-72s, their top of the line back then...

I wonder if America would continue to support Hussein in order to keep Iran in check.
Not unless Iran gets frisky again. The Iran/Iraq war ended about as good for the US as could be... both sides ended up exhausted, with their military forces reduced, and neither side gained anything over the other. Iran's revolutionary fervor was hammered for a while, and Iraq's ability to do large scale damage took a hit too. All in all, the US had a lot of reasons to be pleased with the status quo... and it would have stayed that way for some time if Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait...
 
Top