WI Saddam's regime falls during Desert Storm

As most know, Desert Storm was a major war of 1990-1991. However, despite Iraq losing the war, his regime would not fall until 2003 during the War on Terror.

My question to all of you is: What if Saddam was removed from power by Bush senior during the Gulf War rather than leave him in power? How would this effect the middle east and would it have any effects on modern events and organizations like ISIL?
 
Well the Saudis are going to be incredibly pissed off since one of the demands they made prior to Operation Desert Storm was that Saddam was not to be overthrown, merely evicted and thoroughly chastised. Much as happened post-2003 invasion they were nervous about the country collapsing and much preferred a Sunni or secular government, preferably non-democratic, to act as a bulwark against Iran. How you can get them to change their position I honestly don't know. You can forget about them agreeing to pay the roughly US $30 billion dollars of the total $60 billion dollars cost of the war as they did in our timeline.

Assuming that the Saudis acquiesced or that the US simply decided to do it anyway and present the with a fait accompli things will be different. Iraq will likely be in better shape since they won't of had years and years of being embargoed. With 700,000 US troops being on-hand you would expect that this would allow them to blanket the country and make the initial period calmer than in our timeline. That's no guarantee that the country doesn't come apart at the seams later on anyway of course, even with a less divisive operation there's only so long support would likely hold up for having troops deployed.
 
How is he removed from power ? Invading Iraq v killing him with a random LGB may have significantly different effects?
 
Given the Bush administration's realist outlook and the Saudi perspective mentioned earlier I cannot see marching into Baghdad to overthrow Hussein as a deliberate policy choice. If Saddam falls as a result of the Gulf War that either means.

A. He personally was killed somehow as a result of the conflict-perhaps unintentionally. Not sure how the Saudis would react to that-but if the outcome is a more or less stable authoritarian state governed by someone other than Hussein who is also a Sunni.

I doubt many in the Saudi Government are going to shed tears for Saddam Hussein as a person-so long as they find the character of the post Hussein regime acceptable.


B.
The end of the war unintentionally creates the required conditions for the post-war uprising to successfully overthrow the regime. The outcome of the war changes in subtle ways-Hussein's regime isn't allowed armed helicopters for example.

Not sure what the international reaction would be to that. But if that happens Hussein's post-war overthrow will look inevitable and everyone will be scrambling to influence the shape of post-Saddam Iraq.

Given the internal divisions that might lead to an American military presence in Iraq if the result is a sectarian civil war.

If Saddam Hussein falls as a result of the Gulf War-the reason will not be because of a decision to remove him-since that plan does not fit the foreign policy mindset of the Bush administration. Not even Cheney thought doing so made sense at the time.

That doesn't mean his survival is inevitable-but his fall is likely to be an all but unintentional consequence of the war-rather than Bush deciding to march on Baghdad.
 
How about Bush doesn't call for a ceasefire when he does (IIRC perceived bad image regarding the 'road of death' led to him imposing a deadline)

In OTL Gen. Schwartzkopf on hearing of the timeline for a ceasefire - simply stopped all combat ops right away rather than continuing till the deadline - and I have great respect for him for doing so - he did not want further Coalition (or Iraqi) casualties between that point and said ceasefire.

ITTL - No such deadline is given and the Coalition has 24 plus extra hours in which to crush the retreating Rep Guard units

Those remaining divisions represented the Rep Guards principle units and there was only one man on earth capable of saving them - POTUS George W Bush Snr

With a TL where he does not the rep.guard units that had managed to escape being encircled are instead crushed or are in the process of being crushed by coalition forces when Bush pulls the plug - a large part of Saddam's power base is lost and despite US assurances to Saudi Arabia the Southern tribes around Basra and the Kurds in the North successfully rebel (and this time with fewer loyal forces Saddam is unable to restore control).

He is subsequently knocked on the head by one of his Brothers or other party leaders and after a short and violent power struggle the new leadership seeks terms with the coalition.
 
As most know, Desert Storm was a major war of 1990-1991. However, despite Iraq losing the war, his regime would not fall until 2003 during the War on Terror.

My question to all of you is: What if Saddam was removed from power by Bush senior during the Gulf War rather than leave him in power? How would this effect the middle east and would it have any effects on modern events and organizations like ISIL?
What would be the consequences for other regimes? How would Gadaffi or Hafiz al-Assad react? Or the Bosnian Serb and Yugoslavian leaders ?
 
If Saddam is unintentionally killed by a stray bomb or something, wouldn't his younger son take over running the place? IIRC, he was being groomed for exactly that, and from all accounts, he was one cold-blooded SOB. So the Iraqis wouldn't be any better off...
 
How about Bush doesn't call for a ceasefire when he does (IIRC perceived bad image regarding the 'road of death' led to him imposing a deadline)

In OTL Gen. Schwartzkopf on hearing of the timeline for a ceasefire - simply stopped all combat ops right away rather than continuing till the deadline - and I have great respect for him for doing so - he did not want further Coalition (or Iraqi) casualties between that point and said ceasefire.

ITTL - No such deadline is given and the Coalition has 24 plus extra hours in which to crush the retreating Rep Guard units

Wouldn't Bush and General Schwartzkoph also have to keep the armed helicopters out the reach of the Hussein regime to ensure that outcome? Or is that implied by the destruction of the Republican Guard?

One interesting question about the fall of Saddam Hussein in the early 1990's is how the neoconservative foreign policy view-which historically focused considerable attention on the potential benefits of removing Hussein from power by force-would develop in Hussein's absence.

Would the ideology that believed in the efficacy of regime change and democratization by force in the Middle East develop in the same way with Saddam Hussein as a potential test case for advocates of that theory?

What foreign policy ideas would people like Paul Wolfowitz be concentrating on if Iraq is no longer led by Saddam Hussein? Those thinkers will still be around after all.
 
Wouldn't Bush and General Schwartzkoph also have to keep the armed helicopters out the reach of the Hussein regime to ensure that outcome? Or is that implied by the destruction of the Republican Guard?

One interesting question about the fall of Saddam Hussein in the early 1990's is how the neoconservative foreign policy view-which historically focused considerable attention on the potential benefits of removing Hussein from power by force-would develop in Hussein's absence.

Would the ideology that believed in the efficacy of regime change and democratization by force in the Middle East develop in the same way with Saddam Hussein as a potential test case for advocates of that theory?

What foreign policy ideas would people like Paul Wolfowitz be concentrating on if Iraq is no longer led by Saddam Hussein? Those thinkers will still be around after all.

The use of Helicopters to subsequently deploy troops and chemical weapons etc in the Basra region and Kurdistan would likely be 'butterflied' by the removal of Saddam (well one can hope)

Im not sure about regime change and all that getting a boost as in this example its not a direct attempt to achieve it - I personally don't think it's enough to turn it into a policy.
 
The decision to allow Hussein to have helicopters was to my admittedly limited knowledge made by General Schwartzkoph. The Iraqis persuaded him that their infrastructure had been so damaged by the war that they needed helicopters to meet basic transportation requirements.

Once Iraq had secured helicopters-they armed them and used them to preserve the regime in the face of the uprising as opposed to using them for the original intended purpose.

If the uprising is to succeed a different decision has to be made-or a different solution to the transportation problem to the extent that that represented a legitimate issue.

Perhaps the helicopters could remain under U.S./U.N. control while flying Iraqi officials where they need to go? Or would that be the kind of intervention Saudi Arabia would oppose and the kind of creeping occupation Bush will oppose?

Preventing Hussein from having armed helicopters will alone do a fair amount to weaken his ability to hold down the uprising.

Where the neoconservatives are concerned I wasn't so much thinking about how Iraq will be viewed as a test case for the "regime change" doctrine as to whether or not that doctrine evolves at all absent Iraq as a potential test case.

I can't see anyone reasonably recommending regime change in Iran for example by military force. At least I cannot see those recommendations being made in the same way as the suggestions to overthrow Hussein were made in the period between the Gulf War and 2003.

Part of the appeal of invading Iraq in neoconservative circles was that post-war Iraq was weak and his regime could be removed without much difficulty. In theory you could dramatically alter the Middle East without expending too much effort.

There isn't another country that easily fills that role in that ideological mindset.

Iran is a different beast than Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Not even the most deluded neoconservative is going to think that regime change in Iran can be achieved cheaply and easily.

Libya is unlikely to have the same totemic appeal that invading Iraq had for those thinkers.

The ideology we know as neoconservativism is therefore likely to develop in a different direction if Hussein's regime falls shortly after the Gulf War.
 

Towelie

Banned
Iran would probably get involved at some point, possibly under the guise of protecting the Shiite Holy Site of Karbala. The Shiite leadership of Iraq was wiped out in 1991 after the failed uprising.

For the revolt to succeed, you need the Republican Guard to be destroyed in battle. They might have been cut off OTL if Bush had not announced the ceasefire, or had allowed combat to go on for another week or so.

Saddam dying would lead to his regime cracking up as well. Uday in 1991 was about as awful as at any point, and as stupid as at any point as well. Saddam's uncle might joust for power, but Tariq would not, being a Christian.
 

Puzzle

Donor
Iran would probably get involved at some point, possibly under the guise of protecting the Shiite Holy Site of Karbala. The Shiite leadership of Iraq was wiped out in 1991 after the failed uprising.
Iran then isn't the same as Iran today, and American power would have looked far more unassailable. Would they have had the guts to directly confront the western world, or would the west even care?
 
What was Qussay Hussein doing during the war? Is there any scenario whereby both Qussay and Saddam end up as casualties?

That might break the regime in one way or another or at least put it in non-Hussein family hands. Nobody wanted Uday to inherit his father's position-not even Saddam himself.
 

Towelie

Banned
Iran then isn't the same as Iran today, and American power would have looked far more unassailable. Would they have had the guts to directly confront the western world, or would the west even care?
Iran was extremely weak in 1991. They would not be invading Iraq if there were US troops in the vicinity. The scenario would be a more decisive Gulf War in which the fall of the Republican Guard in combat leads to a Shiite Uprising that actually topples Saddam and leads to civil war between Ba'athist Remnants and the Shiite Rebels. Iran would intervene I think in such a civil war. They had close ties with the Shiite Leadership that was liquidated OTL.

Keep in mind that when Bush called on the Iraqi people to change the regime on their own, he wasn't actually talking to them. He was talking to Ba'athist Generals and party members who knew Saddam was unhinged and a danger to them all. I don't think he predicted a revolt of the Shiite masses but rather a palace coup by reasonable Ba'athists, who as a party were generally western friendly for most of the 80s. Bush in no way wanted an Iranian puppet on the doorstep of Saudi Arabia.

If Iran intervenes, I don't think the West would. The Saudis would go apeshit, however.
 
If Saddam is unintentionally killed by a stray bomb or something, wouldn't his younger son take over running the place? IIRC, he was being groomed for exactly that, and from all accounts, he was one cold-blooded SOB. So the Iraqis wouldn't be any better off...

Saddam had been in power for a while and most of of the leadership owed their position to his patronage.
They owed his sons nothing. If Saddam is killed, we could be looking at a civil war within the Ba'ath party
as well as the country as a whole.
 
Saddam had been in power for a while and most of of the leadership owed their position to his patronage.
They owed his sons nothing. If Saddam is killed, we could be looking at a civil war within the Ba'ath party
as well as the country as a whole.
possible, I suppose, but might it not also happen that the leadership might want to keep everything going as is, and anointing Saddam Jr. as the new king and tyrant be a good way of doing that?
 

Towelie

Banned
possible, I suppose, but might it not also happen that the leadership might want to keep everything going as is, and anointing Saddam Jr. as the new king and tyrant be a good way of doing that?
Saddam's excesses were not well thought of by most of the Ba'ath party, and his sons were even worse (especially Uday). Saddam's leadership cult was much more of a thing for younger Ba'ath party members and Sunni elites to get behind. The older ones I believe resented the way he had assumed power and the road he had led them on (not that they would say so openly). I think there would be a purist Ba'ath movement arise if he was killed against the more Fascist leaning leader cult devotees.

Of course, the one thing that would unite the Ba'ath Party is the prospect of a Shiite uprising. They would put aside differences in such a case. But without the Republican Guard, could they really win? Was the Iraqi Army, in its battered shape in 1991, ready to line up behind a fractured Sunni elite? I think that they would lose, to be frank, unless they had outside support.
 
Top