WI: US doesn't intervene in Iraqs invasion of Kuwait?

Oh, boy, at a certain point, we probably need to talk about East Timor. Ford and Kissinger visited Suharto of Indonesia, and a few days later on Dec. 7, 1975 (yes, Pearl Harbor Day, which is kind of a sad irony), Indonesia invaded the briefly independent nation of East Timor. And the rationale was that Suharto was a cold war ally, and we went along with the label of communist for East Timor even though it's governing party was more of a loosey-goosey Maxist, Catholic liberation theology type of approach.

The invasion was certainly bad for the people of East Timor, with some estimates that one hundred thousand out of six hundred thousand persons killed, and some estimates higher. But did not lead to the type of expanding catastrophe talked about above where every two-bit dictator invades anywhere he or she wants.

And just to show that believing in sanctions rather than war is not wild blue yonder crazy, the effective vote in the United States Senate authorizing military action against Iraq was close, something like 52(?)-47(?). And some down the middle believers in strong defense such as I think Sam Nunn wanted to continue with sanctions. Will try to look up the specifics of this part.
 
Last edited:
Kuwait is more important geo politically then East Timor though.

Kuwait was also the most Soviet-aligned Gulf State, while Iraq was much more American-aligned. The U.S. doing nothing would be seen as a signal that it isn't necessarily going to lift a finger to preserve Westphalian sovereignty for states that are hostile to it.

Anyways, most likely result is sanctions. The GCC are going to shit the bed and will probably integrate defense more closely than OTL. Saddam remains Western-aligned, and may end up having another go at Iran. Syria may also be a possibility—without the Gulf War, Saddam's proxies continue to stir up the Lebanese Civil War, which could further deteriorate relations with Syria.

Domestically, Mario Cuomo runs and defeats Bush easily. Lots of ripples from there.
 
If there is no intervention in the war by the West or international community, I can see Iraq developing nuclear weapons and trying to become an atomic state in the 1990's. They now have the money and resources to do it with Kuwait under control. The US is not going to take action here.

However, an attack by Iran or Israel on the facility sparks a war a few years later. It mostly is an air and espionage war. Iraq bombs Israel or Iran, terror groups attack Israel or Iraq, and more. There could be a short war between the two. I don't think it'll be enough to create a regional conflict though.
 
If there is no intervention in the war by the West or international community, I can see Iraq developing nuclear weapons and trying to become an atomic state in the 1990's. They now have the money and resources to do it with Kuwait under control. The US is not going to take action here.

However, an attack by Iran or Israel on the facility sparks a war a few years later. It mostly is an air and espionage war. Iraq bombs Israel or Iran, terror groups attack Israel or Iraq, and more. There could be a short war between the two. I don't think it'll be enough to create a regional conflict though.

Israel has bombed Iraqi nuclear and chemical facilities many times before and it didn't cause a war. Iraq lacks the airforce to actually attack Israel.
 
Israel has bombed Iraqi nuclear and chemical facilities many times before and it didn't cause a war. Iraq lacks the airforce to actually attack Israel.

Saddam drew up plans in response for a elite team to act against Menachem Begin personally that fell though.
 
That will end... poorly for him.

Would it? This would be a pretty advanced Iraq with lots of money and rearmed military. Maybe they could replicate the Iran Iraq War in a worst case scenario, but I don't think a rematch in this scenario would be an abject failure.

Kuwait was also the most Soviet-aligned Gulf State, while Iraq was much more American-aligned. The U.S. doing nothing would be seen as a signal that it isn't necessarily going to lift a finger to preserve Westphalian sovereignty for states that are hostile to it.

Anyways, most likely result is sanctions. The GCC are going to shit the bed and will probably integrate defense more closely than OTL. Saddam remains Western-aligned, and may end up having another go at Iran. Syria may also be a possibility—without the Gulf War, Saddam's proxies continue to stir up the Lebanese Civil War, which could further deteriorate relations with Syria.

Domestically, Mario Cuomo runs and defeats Bush easily. Lots of ripples from there.

I don't see this happening period if Bush is elected. Best setup would probably be President Dukakis in 1988 since he would have more voices in his party telling him not to get involved.
 
Kuwait is more important geo politically then East Timor though.
absolutely, no question about it.

But it does take some luster off the claim that we're taking the moral high road, now doesn't it? Which means we're just average people, not worse than other people, nor better, just average.

And if someone were to write a book, maybe entitled The Curse of Empire, or Decline Into Empire, or From Republic To Empire, most things would probably work out pretty much like you expected, other things maybe more hopeful.

And to the classic question, what would I do if president? One thing is that I'd keep a rolodex and ask retired Senators to go to different trouble spots and see if they can negotiate a peace. And I'd do it without investing a lot, because if you invest a lot, the expectations are such that you're almost inevitably disappointed.
 

fred1451

Banned
Here are the votes in both houses of the U.S. Congress on Saturday, January 12, 1991, giving President Bush authorization to use military force:
I would be carful putting to much stock in the numbers of votes in the US Congress, pay attention to how the votes came out. In both cases the Democrats held solid majorities in both houses. If you check, I would bet most of the yes democrats where either in safe seats, or voting against would have hurt their reelection bid. Conversely, the no votes probably would have been hurt by voting yes. Don't listen to the rhetoric, or even how the voting numbers, look to see if anyone voting against the party is punished.

As far as the OP, if the US didn't go, it would have badly hurt the US's standing in the world, and likely encouraged conquerors the world over. Nature hates a vacuum.
 
Point well taken that legislators often make "safe" votes which do not affect the outcome. All the same, it is interesting how much anti-war sentiment there was in the United States, that is, before the war was deemed successful.

Why did the U.S. not intervene in Rwanda quicker and more effectively? Somalia and the Blackhawk down was the immediate cause. But there may have been a feeling lurking in the background that the Gulf War had not been a great success. We had said Saddam Hussein was another Hitler and yet let him stay in power. We had not brokered a deal in response to the Iraqi Civil War (tricky), and at one point had even allowed pro-Saddam military units to roll past U.S. units, and later hit upon the concept of no fly zones. And sanctions were still in place, which I understand killed more civilians than the damn war itself.

So possibly, if the U.S. had taken a pass in one way or another regarding the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, may have been quicker on the uptake regarding Rwanda in 1994.

In addition, if there had been U.S. relative inaction in '90 and '91 (say going along and supporting the UN regarding Iraq but not playing the major leadership role), other governments (Europe, Turkey, Brazil, China?) may have become more active internationally, also giving us a quicker response.

Or not. But it potentially may have been a highly helpful re-do which could have made all the difference in the world to the people of Rwanda.
 
Last edited:
Top