WI: Iraq War, Without Removal of Hussein Regime

By the 2000s, Neoconservative criticism of Operation Desert Storm had been that it did not remove the existing regime in Iraq, instead allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power. The greatest criticism following the Iraq War of 2003 has been that it did engage in regime change, collapsing existing governmental and military infrastructure and forcing the United States to assume a leadership role of Iraq in terms of rebuilding the nation and assuming its burdens, with long term destabilization of the Middle East. What if there were an Iraq War, but rather than toppling and occupying the country, it had goals similar to Desert Storm in terms of forcing Iraq to accept UN inspectors along with other terms focused on Iraqi aggression and the suspected WMD program?
 
By the 2000s, Neoconservative criticism of Operation Desert Storm had been that it did not remove the existing regime in Iraq, instead allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power. The greatest criticism following the Iraq War of 2003 has been that it did engage in regime change, collapsing existing governmental and military infrastructure and forcing the United States to assume a leadership role of Iraq in terms of rebuilding the nation and assuming its burdens, with long term destabilization of the Middle East. What if there were an Iraq War, but rather than toppling and occupying the country, it had goals similar to Desert Storm in terms of forcing Iraq to accept UN inspectors along with other terms focused on Iraqi aggression and the suspected WMD program?
That pretty much happened under Clinton

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)
 
The Americans did want to put some expatriates into power, though their decade outside of Iraq meant they had no support. Anyways, maybe there are some general's who could be trusted to take care of things? Without disbanding the army you at least have those trained to shoot still wearing uniforms.
 

Archibald

Banned
The issue was that Saddam was so ruthless, and its two son were far worse sociopaths. Even with their armed force crushed and the country occupied, I'm not sure those three boneheads would be willing to cooperate.

By the way, wasn't Bush 43 obssesed with Saddam removal because his father hasn't done it back then , "I'm going to finish the job, daddy".

More generally, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all the the S.O.B neocons didn't gave a shit about U.N inspectors. They wanted to spred democracy by removing Saddam, plus the WMD scare.
 
The Americans did want to put some expatriates into power, though their decade outside of Iraq meant they had no support. Anyways, maybe there are some general's who could be trusted to take care of things? Without disbanding the army you at least have those trained to shoot still wearing uniforms.

Disbanding the army and debaathification was never Bush and the Pentagon's plan. It was removing Saddam and keeping the existing structure of the state more or less intact with a gradual change toward democracy. It was certain real neocon idealists like ambassador Bremer that decided to throw out the plans Bush signed onto in the name recreating a Germany or Japan.
 
Disbanding the army and debaathification was never Bush and the Pentagon's plan. It was removing Saddam and keeping the existing structure of the state more or less intact with a gradual change toward democracy. It was certain real neocon idealists like ambassador Bremer that decided to throw out the plans Bush signed onto in the name recreating a Germany or Japan.

While there were purges of far-right in Japan and the military establishment was brought down, the occupation authorities emphatically kept the existing structure of state intact. Besides the Emperor still having the Throne, you also had the war-time Diet continuing to meet until spring 1946 and the bureaucracy existed more or less intact.
 
While there were purges of far-right in Japan and the military establishment was brought down, the occupation authorities emphatically kept the existing structure of state intact. Besides the Emperor still having the Throne, you also had the war-time Diet continuing to meet until spring 1946 and the bureaucracy existed more or less intact.

Bremer never wanted the bureaucracy screwed with. He still managed to screw up debaathification by issuing an order that was supposed to effect only 1% of party members, but he handed Chalabi the power over implementing that order and he acted like an agent to Tehran doing so.

Some stuff Bremer screwed up out of his ideology which would be the disbanding of the armed forces, the bureaucracy part was incompetence by handing over power to someone who played him.

What you really needed was no Bremer or a four star general like Petraeus who was going to overrule him in Baghdad as stuff was going on in Baghdad mid to late 2003 that Washington didn't understand.
 
Last edited:

James G

Gone Fishin'
By the way, wasn't Bush 43 obssesed with Saddam removal because his father hasn't done it back then , "I'm going to finish the job, daddy".

Additionally, or maybe more-importantly to understand W's motivations, Saddam made a very serious effort to kill Bush 41 back in 1993. It was serious enough that Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes though they had little overall effects. Revenge, even unconscious revenge, I believe was a powerful motivator for Iraqi Freedom.
Plus there was also Saddam's public reaction to 9-11.
 
Top