WI: We capture Saddam in the Gulf War?

Onyx

Banned
First of all, I was happy that we invaded Iraq since he was of course a son of a bitch.

So I was wondering what if we decided during the Gulf War that it was best of us to invade Iraq full time and just capture him and do the whole democratic government thing?
Would it be the same thing happening like today, or a better kind?
 
First of all, I was happy that we invaded Iraq since he was of course a son of a bitch.

So I was wondering what if we decided during the Gulf War that it was best of us to invade Iraq full time and just capture him and do the whole democratic government thing?
Would it be the same thing happening like today, or a better kind?
WORSE ...

The Republican Guard was Still in Half-Way Decent Shape, The Kurdish Revolt hadn't Broken out Yet, And Quite Frankly, The People weren't Disheartened by 10 Years Worth of Sanctions ...

It would've been, a Blood-Bath!
 

Onyx

Banned
Damn, even if Saddam tortured and murdered many of his own people, they'd STILL resist?
Wow, thats just F*cked up
 
I'll go along with you on the invasion: good riddance to Saddam, his two wicked sons, and the whole bloody Baathist regime.

The problem with a full-scale invasion in 1991 is that the UN mandate for war said "liberate Kuwait." It didn't mean going on to Baghdad and dealing with Saddam's regime. However, there were contingency plans for just that mission: if Iraq had used chemical weapons against U.S. or other Coalition Forces. Both SecState Baker and SecDef Cheney vowed that the Iraqi leadership would be held personally responsible in that event, and slagging Baghdad with a B-61 nuke (max yield: 500 Kt) doesn't do that: after all, Saddam and his inner circle may be out of the city. Thus, the likely response is that once Kuwait and Southern Iraq are clear of Iraqi forces (cities like Samawah, An Nasiriyah, and Basra), XVIII Airborne Corps, VII Corps, and I MEF reorient to push to Baghdad. IMHO that's the only reason in 1991 to go all the way.

There is an alternative: to quote Gen. Chuck Horner, CINC-Central Command Air Forces, said after the war that "We did not try to kill Saddam Hussein. But we bombed every place where he should've been." Getting Saddam in an air strike or cruise missile attack is more likely. And the slime-licker got away from a strike: he used a converted RV as a mobile command vehicle, and was caught on the Baghdad-Basra highway in late Jan '91, by two F-16s. The F-16s destroyed the front vehicles and the rear ones, trapping the RV and a few others in between. They called for backup air, but they had to leave due to low fuel. When additional air did arrive on-scene, the RV was gone. Chances are, that was him. If any of Saddam's post-capture interrogations dealt with this incident, it's still classified.
 
First of all, I was happy that we invaded Iraq since he was of course a son of a bitch.
Since you bring it up, I shall respectfully reply with this, which I do not expect any reply from nor seek it. I simply seek to get it out there.

There's lots of sons of bitches out there ruling countries (we invaded Iraq because they threatened freedom and democracy by invading another tyrannical dictatorship who they had evidence was illegally drilling their nations oil reserves...so...uh...America!). However, as we are not omniscient nor do we have the right to act like we are, I therefore disagree. The outcome may have been good (of this second war), but it wasn't our place in either and set a bad precedent.

So I was wondering what if we decided during the Gulf War that it was best of us to invade Iraq full time and just capture him and do the whole democratic government thing?
Would it be the same thing happening like today, or a better kind?
I'd still say it'd turn out into a bloody affair. You have to occupy the nation (which everybody was weary to do and the initial intent was to only liberate the oppressive dictatorship *I'm naughty* freedom loving nation of Kuwait), and you had the possibility of insurgency and the nation pulling apart between various ethnic groups as much as you do now at least, I think. And, there was no assurance that the rest of the coalition would stick with us. They joined to liberate Kuwait and that only and nothing else was assured.
 
Last edited:
I'd say it would be less bloody. The US would have better credibility with the Shiites if they hadn't said "rise up" and then left them to the wolves as in OTL.
 

Onyx

Banned
(we invaded Iraq because they threatened freedom and democracy by invading another tyrannical dictatorship who they had evidence was illegally drilling their nations oil reserves...so...uh...America!)

And thats how democracy and freedom works :D
 
Top