WI USA goes all out against Iraq in 1990

What would have been the results of George Herbert Walker Bush handling Iraq like his son did? In other words, conquer the entire country and change the regime?

One butterfly would have been that Saudi Arabia would not have supported this, and the USA did not use Saudi territory to attack Iraq in 2003. This could mean that Osama Bin Laden would be less radicalized, so no 9-11 attacks.

Other butterflies would have been no UN support, after all they didn't back the 2003 invasion (which was a flagrant violation of international law) and much less international support, with only Britain and maybe Canada joining the Americans (Canada and Australia would have taken diametrically opposite stances from what they did with the 2003 invasion because the PMs would be different in both countries).

Invading Iraq would have been doable without use of Saudi territory by having the Marines assault Kuwait amphbiously first. And this time the Turks might have allowed use of their territory.
 
There would be less of an insurgency without the Country being gutted by a decade of UN sanction and Saddam's Return to Faith Campaign
 
There would be less of an insurgency without the Country being gutted by a decade of UN sanction and Saddam's Return to Faith Campaign

I'm always sceptical of any plan that includes a phrase something like "and then the natives will welcome our troops with open arms". I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I can't see the link myself. Could you explain a bit more please?
 
I'm always sceptical of any plan that includes a phrase something like "and then the natives will welcome our troops with open arms". I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I can't see the link myself. Could you explain a bit more please?

There was actually a rebellion against Saddam following defeat in the first Gulf War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

After this Saddam decided to radicalise 'his' Sunni 'support' base with the back to faith program during the 1990's and specifically preach Sunni superiority.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I'm always sceptical of any plan that includes a phrase something like "and then the natives will welcome our troops with open arms". I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I can't see the link myself. Could you explain a bit more please?
Without a decade of sanctions and Saddam constantly reminding people that their suffering was at the hands of "the infidel" the Iraqi people wouldn't have been as susceptible to radicalization and they're wouldn't have been nearly as much hatred and resentment for the US built up. Add in Saddam's "Return to Faith" campaign, and the groundwork was laid for the radicalization of people by groups like Al Qaeda in Iraq and ISIS (among others).

The occupation obviously wouldn't have been all roses and sunshine, but it would have been a lot less problematic than it was IOTL. The fact that the US Military was also still near their peak Cold War strength is another bonus. More manpower to keep any potential insurgency from spreading. Add in the fact that there were a number of Vietnam Vets still in uniform, and the Army and Marines wouldn't have lost all their institutional knowledge of combating an insurgency.
 
Invading Iraq would have been doable without use of Saudi territory by having the Marines assault Kuwait amphbiously first. And this time the Turks might have allowed use of their territory.
This really hinges on Turkish support. If Turkey and Saudi Arabia both say no, I don't think a direct amphibious attack (or even an amphibious attack with airborne support) is viable. OTL, the coalition attacked with about 15 divisions and the main attack came in a direction the Iraqi army was completely unprepared for. ITTL, the US would be attacking with at most four divisions (1st and 2nd Marines and 82nd and 101st Airborne), would be attacking directly into the teeth of Iraq's prepared defenses. And remember that these are relatively lightly-equipped divisions: the armored and mechanized divisions are the ones staying behind until the Marines secure Basra or Kuwait City and get the docks in good enough repair to unload tanks and howitzers. The US probably still wins if they go in, but it's going to be a much bloodier and close-fought affair than OTL's ground campaign, and given that they'd know that before committing to attack, I don't think Bush, Powell, etc would have had the political will to go ahead with the assault.

If Turkey and Saudi Arabia also deny use of their airbases and transit rights through their airspace, the air war gets a lot harder, too. The US can still park carriers in the Gulf, and maybe Qatar or Oman will let the US and Britain use their bases, but lack of forward bases and a restricted vector is going to hurt. The US (and Britain, etc) are still going to win air supremacy, but they'll be running the bombing campaign with fewer aircraft and with each aircraft making fewer sorties due to travel time.
 

SsgtC

Banned
This really hinges on Turkish support. If Turkey and Saudi Arabia both say no, I don't think a direct amphibious attack (or even an amphibious attack with airborne support) is viable. OTL, the coalition attacked with about 15 divisions and the main attack came in a direction the Iraqi army was completely unprepared for. ITTL, the US would be attacking with at most four divisions (1st and 2nd Marines and 82nd and 101st Airborne), would be attacking directly into the teeth of Iraq's prepared defenses. And remember that these are relatively lightly-equipped divisions: the armored and mechanized divisions are the ones staying behind until the Marines secure Basra or Kuwait City and get the docks in good enough repair to unload tanks and howitzers. The US probably still wins if they go in, but it's going to be a much bloodier and close-fought affair than OTL's ground campaign, and given that they'd know that before committing to attack, I don't think Bush, Powell, etc would have had the political will to go ahead with the assault.
In the early 90s, the USN still operated a large number of LSTs and other amphibious assault ships (with more being in reserve). With the large number of LSTs available, they would be able to land large amounts of armor directly on the beach to support the Marines. If the US was required to launch an amphibious assault, they could probably land up to 4 divisions on the beach plus the 82d, 101st and 173d Airborne dropped by the Air Force.

Then there are the battleships. In a situation where an assault across the beach is a certainty, the USN would have sent all four Iowas for NGFS. Plus as many other gun equiped ships as possible.

It wouldn't have been the cakewalk that was OTL, but it still would have succeeded.
 
Without a decade of sanctions and Saddam constantly reminding people that their suffering was at the hands of "the infidel" the Iraqi people wouldn't have been as susceptible to radicalization and they're wouldn't have been nearly as much hatred and resentment for the US built up. Add in Saddam's "Return to Faith" campaign, and the groundwork was laid for the radicalization of people by groups like Al Qaeda in Iraq and ISIS (among others).

Same group just rebranded for the most part at least the more al-Qaeda loyal elements were with Zarqawi, but a number left to al-Nusra.

The occupation obviously wouldn't have been all roses and sunshine, but it would have been a lot less problematic than it was IOTL. The fact that the US Military was also still near their peak Cold War strength is another bonus. More manpower to keep any potential insurgency from spreading. Add in the fact that there were a number of Vietnam Vets still in uniform, and the Army and Marines wouldn't have lost all their institutional knowledge of combating an insurgency.

Yes, they had a lot of structural advantages. There were very few forced in Iraq able or with the institutional knowledge to wage an insurgent war. Zarqawi came to quickly dominate the indigenous less radical groups taking shots at the U.S. because they didn’t know how to wage an insurgent war and were doing it stupidly.

I think a ‘91 fall of Saddam though not without some problems would be all around a very different situation.
 
Had Bush I held his nerve a bit better for a few additional days, allowing the USAF to continue hitting the Iraqis instead of folding to pressure from the media and other nations, the Republican Guard would've been far too gutted to put down the 1991 Uprisings.
 
The question really becomes "What's your exit strategy?"

Weakening Iraq empowers Iran, and while Iran wouldn't have had the decade of recovery time it had IOTL, it would still leave the Arab states open to Shi'ite revolt.

Does the USA put a democratically elected government in place? This just means the Shi'ites, with their bigger numbers, muscle out the other groups at the ballot. The Kurds would want to go independent, pissing off Turkey.

While ISIS does not rise, the USA still finds itself dealing with most of the same problems Operation: Iraqi Freedom had; removing a tyrant doesn't magically solve everything, and all it means is pulling the lid off a big stewing pot of resentment and ethnic strife.
 
Had Bush I held his nerve a bit better for a few additional days, allowing the USAF to continue hitting the Iraqis instead of folding to pressure from the media and other nations, the Republican Guard would've been far too gutted to put down the 1991 Uprisings.


Then what? An independent shiite south gravitating toward Iran.
 
The question really becomes "What's your exit strategy?"

Weakening Iraq empowers Iran, and while Iran wouldn't have had the decade of recovery time it had IOTL, it would still leave the Arab states open to Shi'ite revolt.

Does the USA put a democratically elected government in place? This just means the Shi'ites, with their bigger numbers, muscle out the other groups at the ballot. The Kurds would want to go independent, pissing off Turkey.

While ISIS does not rise, the USA still finds itself dealing with most of the same problems Operation: Iraqi Freedom had; removing a tyrant doesn't magically solve everything, and all it means is pulling the lid off a big stewing pot of resentment and ethnic strife.

No it wouldn’t. The middle class is not gone. The Shia at this point in time are much more open to working with the U.S. and Iraqi Sunnis before they get slaughtered in 1991. There are vitally no jihadists on the ground and that is critical as they not the Baathists knew how to wage an insurgency.

The Kurds were at this point not a confederal state for many years so they have no real expectation of being suddenly independent.

We would have much of the Iraqi Army in POW camps which we could use to reform the forces whereas in 2003 they dissolved.

The big problem that would still be there is a critical mass of Iraqi Sunnis regard themselves as the masters of the rest of Iraq and control most of the civil service and military.

It was simply made a colossal mistake not to topple Saddam in 1991 or else it would have been far better to have not fought because 1991 the outcome guaranteed another war which would be harder down the road.

Each year as time passed it became harder. Renewed hostilities in 2001 would have been easier then war in 2003 for instance and very noticeably so.
 
Last edited:
If Saudi and Turkey refused, the US would remember this. This might lead to a more anti-Saudi/Turkish US. Maybe more pro-Israel, maybe a window for Iran to make peace with the US (though it's just as likely the US gets victory disease and uses Iraq as a base to invade Iran in a decade)

9/11 might happen earlier.

We would need a Japan-like reconstruction of Iraq, but in the 90s , a period of prosperity- I could see that happening. Clinton's legacy would be based on Iraqi reconstruction.

There's also butterflies on the Balkan War- but I could see those going either way.
 
No it wouldn’t. The middle class is not gone. The Shia at this point in time are much more open to working with the U.S. and Sunnis before they get slaughtered in 1991. There are vitally no jihadists on the ground.

The Kurds were at this point not a confederal state for many years so they have no real expectation of being suddenly independent.

We would have much of the Iraqi Army in POW camps which we could use to reform the forces whereas in 2003 they dissolved.

It was simply made a colossal mistake not to topple Saddam in 1991 or else it would have been far better to have not fought because 1991 guaranteed another war which would be harder down the road.
But that's a decades-long project, something which would have meant the USA would have had to sit down and work on rebuilding Iraq, and dealing with insurgencies - which will still happen because nobody likes an occupier. You're still going to deal with IEDs and ambushes and dead-enders, and even the people the US liberated (the Kurds and Shi'ites) would want the USA out ASAP, which would cause its own troubles. The Kurds have spent so long fighting the Turks and Iraqis that they're bound to try and revolt and make their own country.

The biggest reason Papa Bush didn't go all out in 1991 was because he knew the USA was going to have to pick up the tab for fixing up the country, both financially and politically, until Iraq gets back on its feet again.
 
But that's a decades-long project, something which would have meant the USA would have had to sit down and work on rebuilding Iraq, and dealing with insurgencies - which will still happen because nobody likes an occupier. You're still going to deal with IEDs and ambushes and dead-enders, and even the people the US liberated (the Kurds and Shi'ites) would want the USA out ASAP, which would cause its own troubles. The Kurds have spent so long fighting the Turks and Iraqis that they're bound to try and revolt and make their own country.

The biggest reason Papa Bush didn't go all out in 1991 was because he knew the USA was going to have to pick up the tab for fixing up the country, both financially and politically, until Iraq gets back on its feet again.

There would have been no ‘insurgencies’ if we toppled Saddam in 1991 period and that is my last comment on the matter as I have nothing else worth saying about the topic.

It was only the jihadists under Zarqawi in Iraq who could find where their ass was in 2003 and years after when it comes to what was needed to develop an insurgency and they had prepared the ground already for one the year before.

40-50 year old Soviet trained Saddam officers didn’t know the very basics of how to to form an insurgency in 2003 and wouldn’t in 2001 either. The Shia didn’t either and would have no incentive to try.

The Sunnis might have the incentive, but lack the ability and after getting beat in the field of battle they wouldn’t be in a fighting mood for awhile. In 2003 you lacked a similar moment as more or less the U.S. walked in and tore down Saddam’s statue without having defeated hundreds of thousands of troops in the field.
 
Last edited:
There would have been no ‘insurgencies’ if we toppled Saddam in 1991 period.
Insurgencies are a fact of life in the modern age. You can't fight a regular army head-on, so you start looking for ways to stab them in the back, cutting at weak spots and hopefully making the whole occupation not worthwhile for the invaders.

The French, the Poles and the Soviets fought the Germans even after they overran them, and resistance forces existed all over Europe during WW2. There were resistance forces in the Baltic States until the Soviets eventually stamped them out. At this point, there are two resistance groups working in the Middle East; the Palestinian Intifada ("uprising") and Hezbollah in South Lebanon. The former would come and go, while the latter would successfully force Israel to accept the fact South Lebanon could never be successfully held. Not to mention the recent mujahedeen forces managing to bleed the Soviets in Afghanistan.

The insurgency doesn't even have to win. It doesn't have to last long. If it doesn't (i.e. it's crushed quickly and rooted out), then kudos to the occupying force. But it's still an added cost of occupation. You're talking about an army that came in, crushed the local forces, and imposed their law and order. You're bound to have people not pleased with their presence. You're going to have someone who tries to fight the occupier, whether because they're dead-enders, fanatics, or radical patriots.

And that still doesn't solve the issue of having to rebuild and replace Iraq's destroyed infrastructure, including severely damaged industrial base and power plants. The USA can loan Iraq the money to rebuild, but we're talking Marshall Plan here; the USA won't see a single red cent of this money for at least ten to twenty years.

And what government takes over? How exactly are they going to prove legitimate if they came in with American/Allied firepower? Democratic governments don't exactly spring up overnight, and winning the ballot just potentially means a new tyrant takes over, one backed by the majority.
 
What would have been the results of George Herbert Walker Bush.... conquer the entire country and change the regime?

One butterfly would have been that Saudi Arabia would not have supported this, ..
Other butterflies would have been no UN support,...

Invading Iraq would have been doable without use of Saudi territory by having the Marines assault Kuwait amphbiously first. And this time the Turks might have allowed use of their territory.
Why does this matter as by the time US forces press on from Kuwait its to late for Saudi to retroactively revoke permission to use Saudi Arabia to start from.

That and the allies that are not willing to carry on north can simply be left to guard PoWs and start rebuilding Kuwait?
 
It was only the jihadists under Zarqawi in Iraq who could find where their ass was in 2003 and years after when it comes to what was needed to develop an insurgency and they had prepared the ground already for one the year before.

40-50 year old Soviet trained Saddam officers didn’t know the very basics of how to to form an insurgency in 2003 and wouldn’t in 2001 either. The Shia didn’t either and would have no incentive to try.

The Sunnis might have the incentive, but lack the ability and after getting beat in the field of battle they wouldn’t be in a fighting mood for awhile. In 2003 you lacked a similar moment as more or less the U.S. walked in and tore down Saddam’s statue without having defeated hundreds of thousands of troops in the field.
You have a point there about Saddam's men not being good at insurgency, but then again, it wasn't Saddam or his goons who commanded the 2003 insurgency either. Admittedly, the Dubya administration massively cocked up the post-invasion stage to allow the insurgency to not only blossom, but get a shot in the arm from all those unsecured Iraqi Army caches. But there's always going to be an incredibly high chance of an insurgency.

And let's be honest; Zarqawi was as much a mastermind of the 2003 insurgency as Saddam was. His death meant nothing. A good deal of the insurgents were Al-Qaeda-aligned or sympathetic, but the main reason the war in Iraq 2003 was such a clusterfuck was because there were several terror groups at each others' throats; Sunni, Shi'ite, secular... and the Alliance forces have to police them all, protect the civilian populace against them, and generally get involved in the messy affair of administration.

Resistance cells don't form fully overnight. They're trial and error. Some radicals fight the new system, some make mistakes and get wiped out, others live to fight another day. In the battles and ambushes, more people die, others are radicalized. Mistakes happen, and people suffer. The brash ones die off quickly, the cooler heads prevail and learn from other people's mistakes. After that, it becomes a war of attrition between occupier and insurgency. Sometimes, they don't even target the occupier, but other ethnic groups within the same country, and those guys get radicalized and fight back, resulting in more chaos in the streets. And the occupier wants everything nice and orderly, so now they have to fight both sides. Ask the British Army how fun it was being caught in the crossfire of the UVF and IRA.

Plus, Iraq in 1991 still had an ace in the hole; its chemical weapons. By 2003, their arsenal had degraded, decayed, or gone inert, and basically gone useless or handed over to the UN inspections. By 1991, however, it still had its arsenal, or a considerable part thereof. The Desert Storm victory was just Iraq getting a spanking and forced to get out of Kuwait, but if the regime was fully aware the Americans were coming for its head and wanting to get every last Baathist... well, you can bet they'll be handing out anthrax and poison gas presents like they were going out of style. Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf... they'd all get several toxic warheads. OTL war had the warheads all be conventional because Saddam knew the moment he went NBC, the US would respond in kind, but if his only option was Gotterdammerung, well, he'd make his enemies pay in blood since he was going down anyways.
 
Top