WI: Bush Snr. pushed on in Iraq?

In OTL, What would happen for Bush Snr. to push upwards into Baghdad to remove Saddam?

What would the implications for Iraq's wmds?

Would Bush win a 2nd term like his son OTL?

How would a Bush Second term affect issues such as Bosnia, Rwanda and other places?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
The Iraq fiasco would happen in the 90s instead.
Bush senior wouldn't care shit about Bosnia or Rwanda. (no vital American interrests).
 
The Iraq fiasco would happen in the 90s instead.

Actually, an occupation of Iraq by Bush I would have been very different from that of Bush II in OTL.

Bush I had 500,000 troops in Desert Storm, vs. 140,000 that Bush II had for OIF. Also, in the early 90s you would not have had al-Queda suicide bombers stoking sectarian violence by killing Iraqi Shia.

So had Bush I gone to Baghdad, there would still have been an insurgency, but a much less deadly one than in OTL. And not only would there have have been fewer US casualties, the American public would have been more tolerant of the casualties that did occur, since the rationale for the war would not have been discredited.

In 1992, most Americans would still have supported the war, and trusted Bush to win it more than Clinton, so Bush would have been re-elected.
 
Bush Sr. did not want to mess with Baghdad because he didn't think he had enough forces. Now, it has been a constant lament that he did not press partways north and cripple more of Saddam's military. Essentially, he could have left Iraq in a mess without a full scale invasion.
 
After Schwartzkopf's end run around the main Iraqi forces the Republican Guard was decimated and the Allies had more than 100,000 Iraqi POWs. Assuming that Bush Sr. had decided to go ahead. He most likely would have had the support of Britain, but not the assorted Arab allies or France:eek: What could have been tried is to assemble in addition an army of liberation drawn from captured Iraqis. the advantage of this being that placing the Iraqi AOL in the front lines, stiffened with US and British forces with total air superiority and the best armored divisions in the world, a march up the Euphrates would have been unstoppable. The new Iraqi force could take the credit for liberating their homeland (rather like DeGualle's Free French) and we could have installed a friendly Iraqi government rather quickly. That government would have the task of surpressing any insurgency and given the unpopularity of Saddam, probably would have been fairly successful at doing so.
 
Also keep in mind that TTL's occupation forces will not be looking for WMD's that may or may not be there. All their efforts will be on crushing any kind of proto-insurgency within Iraq. That being said, I doubt there'll be an easy transition of power. I'd wager that the US and whatever allies it end up occupying Iraq while the framework of a new democratic state is set up. Like OTL a very large embassy will be built along with other military facilities to support the occupation. Casualties however will be much lower than OTL.

1992 sees Bush Senior win a second term due primarily to the ongoing war. With the US tied down in Iraq I'd expect Bosnia to be handled primarily by the Europeans, and Somalia/Rwanda to be ignored by everyone.

The 1996 election should be interesting. Assuming the War is going relatively well I'd wager the GOP sees Quayle launch an unsuccessful bid for the Presidency along with Bob Dole and a few other GOP hopefulls. On the Democrat side perhaps Colin Powell can be persuaded to run for office...

Canada in TTL will most likely be in the USA's "Coalition of the Willing" occupying Iraq in TTL perhaps leading to more military spending earlier in Canada.
 
I expect the Russians to go mad about this.
With the Cold War recently ended, they would be intimidated by the prospect of US permanent presence in Iraq.

Furthermore Iran may shift to a more radical philosophy a lot earlier.
 
With Saddam ousted earlier and the Shiites ready to take power.... Perhaps we would see a Islamic Republic of Iraq...

How well would that jive with an "army of liberation" raised from the PoWs, though?

I can see a few positive spins on a Bush I war, but they don't all work together.

Where might Turkey fit into the picture with a 1991 war?
 

The Sandman

Banned
Wasn't the whole "none of the peninsular Arab states wanted us to go to Baghdad" thing kind of important in 1991? Especially considering that we were using them for logistical support at the time?

Also, in 1991 Saddam actually did have WMD, in the form of chemical weapons. While in OTL he never used them, the gloves probably would have come off if we had made it clear that his removal was now the goal of the war.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
One risk factor would be Saddam attacking Israel as a desperate move when it's apparent he will lose. (He shoot rockets on Israel OTL, he could just shoot some more and the Israelis are pissed). Then Israel join the coalition and all US Arab allies leave because they won't ally with Israel. Could cause a messy situation.
 

Hyperion

Banned
France might not have had much of a choice in the matter, seeing as they had a full armored division on the ground in Iraq to begin with.

You would also have Egypt onboard with 30,000 ground troops and 300 tanks.

The French have the 6th armored backing up the 82nd airborne. So while they can be withdrawn at a latter date, as they are already deep incountry, and will probably be in combat, the French would find it a bit difficult to not be involved.
 
France might not have had much of a choice in the matter, seeing as they had a full armored division on the ground in Iraq to begin with.

You would also have Egypt onboard with 30,000 ground troops and 300 tanks.

The French have the 6th armored backing up the 82nd airborne. So while they can be withdrawn at a latter date, as they are already deep incountry, and will probably be in combat, the French would find it a bit difficult to not be involved.

Umm... all they have to do is stop advancing. It's not like there is going to be any desperate attempts to disentangle them from the Iraqi army. At any rate they're not going to be magically forced to push on to Baghdad by virtue of being in Iraq.
 
This isn't going to be the cakewalk that some people say it it, and certianly not easier than 2003 at least as far as major combat goes.

In 2003, the majority of the Iraqi army chose not to fight, in 1991 they did. You can expect to see some epic (by modern standards) urban battles in the Basrah area.
 
No reason for the Northern and Southern No-Fly zones during the 90s...;)

Still have an issue of who runs the country following the eventual removal of Saddam. No Iraqi Government in Exile...:confused:

What, if any, support might the Shite in the south and the Kurds in the north been able to provide? Even if nothing more then tying down some of Saddam's forces.

This option could have been viewed by those two parties as viable support of their "up-risings".

What's the impact on the US of "exceeding" the UN mandate?
 
Still have an issue of who runs the country following the eventual removal of Saddam. No Iraqi Government in Exile...:confused:

This was the basic reason why the war wasn't carried all the way through... to replace Saddam, we would have wanted a moderate Iraqi who would appeal to all the factions there and keep the country cemented together; there wasn't any such person in sight. As much as we were angry at Saddam for invading Kuwait, a long term strategic problem was that Iraq couldn't be weakened too much or thrown in anarchy, because Iran was right next door and looking to do monkey business there. The coalition wanted to reduce Iraq's army to an infantry heavy (strong defensive/weak offensive) force capable to deterring Iranian aggression... and it pretty much achieved that goal...
 
Yeah, the motivation is an issue. IIRC cheney himself at the time said that invading was a bad idea (fuck that guy), Bush I also probably wanted to avoid pissing off all the arabic allies in order to maintain stability in the area, and he wanted to keep Iraq as a bulwark against Iran. Invading Iraq to remove saddam does nothing to advance US interests at the time. Therefore you need to make removing Saddam a far more attractive option, or make leaving him in power far less desirable. Your best bet is to either get the Iraqi's to either use chemical weapons against Kuwait during the invasion or against Israel, or have him make a turn to invade Saudi Arabia after finishing off Kuwait, or both. I know it seems pretty stupid for him to do it, but so was a lot of things he did. You get both justification for removing Saddam, and the US is a lot more popular in the middle east. Of course the coalition has a much harder time doing it however, they'll have to fight their way through Saudi Arabia first among other things.
 

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
No reason for the Northern and Southern No-Fly zones during the 90s...;)

Still have an issue of who runs the country following the eventual removal of Saddam. No Iraqi Government in Exile...:confused:

What, if any, support might the Shite in the south and the Kurds in the north been able to provide? Even if nothing more then tying down some of Saddam's forces.

This option could have been viewed by those two parties as viable support of their "up-risings".

What's the impact on the US of "exceeding" the UN mandate?

Do not reply to year-old threads (thread necromancy).

This is an official warning.
 
Top