WI: Schwarzkopf doesn't agree to let the Iraqis use helicopters, 1991 uprising succeeds?

The 1991 Iraqi uprising was a crucial moment in modern Iraqi, and by extension, Middle Eastern history, and very nearly succeeded in deposing Saddam. There were a variety of factors why they failed, but one damning mention that I have found is the acceptance by General Norman Schwarzkopf of using helicopters to meet "basic civilian requirements" on March 3, 1991, and almost immediately, the Iraqi forces started using them as gunships to put down the uprising. This, combined with the uprising in Baghdad mostly failing and fizzling out, allowed Saddam to enact a brutal counter-attack and eventually crush the revolution, killing thousands and displacing millions, setting the stage for the radicalization of much of the Sunni population, and having the Shias feel betrayed by the US' not supporting the uprising. What if Schwarzkopf had disagreed, and prohibited their usage, and subsequently, the rebels take over the country? Is it possible for anything better than OTL to emerge, or is this the chaos of the post-invasion period simply happening 12 years earlier? Can Bush win the 1992 election? How does this affect the future presidential terms of Bill Clinton, or can somebody else get nominated? How does this affect the Middle East at large, and how does Iran react?
 
The revolt failed because the Republican Guard mechanized units escaped the encirclement for the most part due to the ceasefire before the majority of the Iraqi Army could be overrun. Saddam's army had fallen apart but it's most loyal units were for the most part intact

Helos being grounded would help but the revolt ultimately was crushed on the ground
 
Last edited:
Helicopter's certainly played a major part in the regime crushing the revolts. They were able to move troops and supplies around particularly in the mountainous terrain in the north, locate and map rebel position's and of course use them as gunships. Helicopter's were so useful to them that albeit belatedly NATO/UN enforced 'No Fly Zones' in both northern and southern sections of Iraq in order to try to protect the civilian populations.
The rebellions were hampered more by the initial apathy on the part of the west and downright hostility from Turkey against the Kurdish rebellion.
It's difficult to say, a lack of helicopter's would certainly prolong the rebellions and under certain circumstances could lead to Saddam being overthrown by his own party (after catastrophically losing the gulf war & now unable to crush these rebellions swiftly even his position would be questionable). Turkey definitely would do everything in it's power to crush the Kurdish dreams of an independent homeland and would perhaps supply Saddam's forces with NATO intel on Kurdish positions as well as providing a few helpful airstrikes.
 
Was it an Military decision? Or rather,a political one?
As far as I'm aware it was just a simple mistake on the grounds that after destroying a lot of Iraq's transport and infrastructure they believed helicopter's were essential in moving around food and medicines, no one really seen the rebellions in the north and south coming, they came as a pleasant surprise to western countries as a way of finishing off Saddam without getting their hands dirty.
 
Top