The problem is that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was facing an economic catastrophe, with more than a hundred billion dollars needed for reconstruction and debt repayment, not nearly enough money coming in from oil, a non-oil sector simply incapable of filling the gap, and a military that could not be demobilized because the labour market could not handle hundreds of thousands of young male entrants. If Iraq did not get a massive influx of funds from (say) a successful invasion of Kuwait, the country would have faced a meltdown.

As I posted before, prior to the invasion Kuwait offered to pay $10 billion. Maybe that wasn't enough
 

GI Jim

Banned
I think the suggestion that Saddam (Or his successor) would have been overthrown in 2011 due to the arab spring is a ludicrous one. Saddam's Iraq was not like any of the other authoritarian regimes in the region. Of course Gadaffi, Assad and Mubarak were no democrats, but in relation to Saddam they may aswell have been. Iraq under Saddam was more akin to Nazi Germany or modern day North Korea than other middle eastern regimes. The personality cult and security services that he built were like nothing that region had ever seen, or indeed has seen since. Any rumblings of dissent in 2011 if he's still in charge would have been utterly crushed in days, not weeks.
 
no invasion of Kuwait, no US/allied troops in SA, no 'no fly' zones afterwards, no permanent US presence there... no 9/11? If Saddam behaves himself (a big if), the US just might not be involved in the ME much, other than the usual 'Israel problem'....
 
Amadeus wrote:
The Persian Gulf War was a huge military success for the United States, a quick and easy victory that achieved America's strategic goals without bringer down into a protracted quagmire like Vietnam or Afghanistan. However, in the long term this set the stage for the disastrous Iraq War in 2003. What if the Persian Gulf War had never happened? The POD is the US Congress passes the Prevention of Genocide Act in 1988, punishing Hussein for his crimes against humanity and ultimately deterring him from invading Kuwait two years later.

The POD doesn’t work as has been noted. The fact the act was not really applicable though it was ‘thrown’ into the pile when the US was ramping up for the war, (both of them) simply to add to the list of “issues” with Iraq and Saddam.

Starman wrote:
Suppose the US deters an attack by sending troops to Kuwait in response to the Iraqi buildup, before the attack actually begins, but otherwise takes no action.

Kuwait wouldn’t allow it. They were well aware they were treading a line even allowing the fiction of re-flagging our tankers to their colors to try and avoid being attacked by either Iraq or Iran during the war and that both sides were looking towards them as being a new ‘flank’ in the war. Either side would have jumped on a pretext to take them out.

IIRC prior to the crisis Kuwait offered to pay Iraq $10 billion compensation for drilling in a manner which took some of its oil.

Amadeus wrote:
So suppose Hussein accepts this deal. What happens on the long term if the war never takes place?

Ya, about that…

Zheng He wrote:
Side (Slant) drilling or whatever it's called. Basically the wells were in Kuwait but they drilled at an angle so they were pulling out oil that was on the other side of the border.

In fact no evidence of ‘slant’ drilling was every found BUT the Kuwait’s still offered to ‘pay’ Iraq for taking oil that supposedly wasn’t theirs. Why? In fact both Kuwait and Iraq were likely into the same oil reserve by NORMAL means. Iraq as noted needed funds to pay for the war debt they had incurred during the Iran/Iraq war and “expected” the other Gulf states to pay this. They accused Kuwait of ‘slant’ drilling and lo-and-behold Kuwait offers to “pay” for a bogus claim with 10 billion dollars. I’ve heard arguments that was exactly the reason Saddam decided to attack Kuwait as ‘obviously” they had plenty of money. In addition keep in mind that it would give another axis of attack to hit Iran NEXT time, and yes there was a plan to attack again.

In fact at the time I understood that Saddam HAD taken the deal… And invaded anyway. Kuwait always understood it was going to be a target of either Iran or Iraq at some point. Kuwait had no standing support from the US, (they let us re-flag some tankers but that was a straight up economic deal IIRC) whereas the UAE and Saudi WERE “protected” by the US so those two were definitely out. Syria and Jordan were also out beings they both had military's capable of offering significant defense whereas Kuwait did not. In the end Kuwait had to hope that buying Saddam off with a 10 billion dollars was going to be enough. It wasn’t.

I’ll also note that what set up 2003 was not the First Gulf War but the refusal of our allies to support taking Saddam out at that time rather than leaving him to linger. Keep in mind the US was IN Baghdad when things got called off. “Better the Devil you Know” and all that but simply put our Arab allies decided that the war was over and they were going to withdraw within 24 hours which meant the other Coalition forces would have no secure flanks deep inside ‘enemy’ territory. We had no choice but to make peace and withdraw ourselves. THAT is what set up the 2003 invasion. (Well along with a bunch of policy wonks in Washington, pretty much the entire upper administration of Bush II btw, who “decided”, with no input from people who actual understood the Middle East mind you, that a “stable and democratic Iraq” was the key to stability in the Middle East and achieving that meant we had to invade and take out Saddam)

It is arguable that had there been no First Gulf War then 9/11 would not have happened but I think it unlikely. While the US presence after the Iran/Iraq war was greatly reduced there was still a presence. 9/11 was an escalation of an attack not only on the US but also Saudi to try and move them to totally end the Western, (British, and anyone else as well) presence in Saudi. But that wasn't going to happen for various reasons. 9/11 was massively more effective than Al-Qaeda had hoped for and also turned out very much worse for them as it made the US mad. As it was Saudi was in fact getting fed up with Bin Laden who was supposed to be removing the fanatical element from Saudi to "someplace-else" but was turning more and more attention to Saudi itself. Had the First Gulf War not happened he (and Al-Qaeda) would still have been focused on removing "western" influence in Saudi and likely would still have picked the US as a target. Whether they would have managed to still get the financial support they did OTL to actually carry out 9/11 I will point out it was actually a VERY cost effective effort with the only down-side being it pissed the US off enough to actually DO something.

The difference is barring the First Gulf War means that there is less internal US pressure to "do" something about Iraq/Saddam than OTL and we'd likely have actually done better in Afghanistan by comparison. (Focusing only on a single target instead of getting side-tracked with Iraq)

Randy
 
I think the suggestion that Saddam (Or his successor) would have been overthrown in 2011 due to the arab spring is a ludicrous one. Saddam's Iraq was not like any of the other authoritarian regimes in the region. Of course Gadaffi, Assad and Mubarak were no democrats, but in relation to Saddam they may aswell have been. Iraq under Saddam was more akin to Nazi Germany or modern day North Korea than other middle eastern regimes.

Stalin may be the best analogy.

The personality cult and security services that he built were like nothing that region had ever seen, or indeed has seen since. Any rumblings of dissent in 2011 if he's still in charge would have been utterly crushed in days, not weeks.

Most likely, yes, but much depends on who replaces Saddam. Assad sr was ruthless with internal dissent but jr let things get out of hand.
 
I’ll also note that what set up 2003 was not the First Gulf War but the refusal of our allies to support taking Saddam out at that time rather than leaving him to linger. Keep in mind the US was IN Baghdad when things got called off.

In Baghdad in '91? US forces were in southern Iraq, but....

(Well along with a bunch of policy wonks in Washington, pretty much the entire upper administration of Bush II btw, who “decided”, with no input from people who actual understood the Middle East mind you, that a “stable and democratic Iraq” was the key to stability in the Middle East and achieving that meant we had to invade and take out Saddam)

Wolfowitz and others sure led this country into a mess...

It is arguable that had there been no First Gulf War then 9/11 would not have happened but I think it unlikely. While the US presence after the Iran/Iraq war was greatly reduced there was still a presence.

Furthermore, from what I've read, the 9/11 Commission determined that US support of Israel was among the reasons for the attack.
 
In Baghdad in '91? US forces were in southern Iraq, but....

We had forces in the suburbs and more on the way. There was really nothing between us and him.

Wolfowitz and others sure led this country into a mess...

They of course "knew" more than any actual 'expert' just ask Rush :)

Furthermore, from what I've read, the 9/11 Commission determined that US support of Israel was among the reasons for the attack.

In that area that's ALWAYS a reason for not liking someone so not that much difference :)

Randy
 
Top