WI: We Invaded Iraq In 1991?

It's been speculated that George H.W Bush lost the 1992 election not only due to the weakening economy, but also due to his refusal to begin a full-on invasion of Iraq after the success of Desert Storm in late 1990. George W. Bush supposedly invaded Iraq partially because he did not want to lose the 2004 election, believing his father could have won in 1992 if he invaded. Having witnessed the widespread destruction invading Iraq eventually caused, it can be said that Bush Sr.'s decision not to invade in 1991 was a sensible one. However, what if he did decide to start a full-on invasion and overthrow Saddam Hussein in 1991? What are the possible consequences? How different is the U.S culturally, economically and in regards to the military? (Detailed, well-thought out responses are preferred.)
 
I cheerfully told anyone when the question came up that Saddam was a goner, and no invasion was needed. I figured that Mossad would off him, possibly in a deniable fashion, or losing the war would cause a faction fight that would oust him. It never occurred to me that he'd hold on like that.
 
I cheerfully told anyone when the question came up that Saddam was a goner, and no invasion was needed. I figured that Mossad would off him, possibly in a deniable fashion, or losing the war would cause a faction fight that would oust him. It never occurred to me that he'd hold on like that.

We pocketed only a little less then half the Republican Guard or Saddam's SS another 48 hours and it would have been closer to 95%. Add in there a No Fly Zone that includes no attack helicopters for Saddam and the regime would have been done.

Iraqi Sunnis weren't as religiously radicalized in 1991 as they were in 2003, no major jihadist presence as well and you would have captured the most effective of Saddam's troops.
 
Invading Iraq outright would have exceeded the UN mandate and risked alienating the United States Arab allies and at least have risked a protracted conflict which the administration was presumably keen to avoid. Given those conditions would Bush have ever been willing to take the risk of marching on to Baghdad? Creating the conditions for a successful 1991 rebellion seems more plausible than an outright invasion. But from a practical standpoint how would that happen? If you need to extend the Gulf War by another 48 hours how would that happen without a deliberate decision to overthrow Hussein? How do you put the Bush administration in a position where attack helicopters can be denied?

Religiously radicalized or not it's hard to see the Sunni population embracing what would have been almost inevitably a Shi'ite dominated government. Even in 1991 I think the ethnic/religious tensions in Iraq would lead to post Hussein tension.

Of course a lot would depend on just who would come to power in the aftermath of a successful 1991 uprising and how he would behave towards the Sunni population.

So assuming that the Coalition forces could inadvertently engineer the requisite conditions for a successful 1991 uprising what sort of person would rise to power after Saddam?
 
I think there was a definite PR issue with adding 48 hours to the offensive. The Iraqis were in full rout. With few large scale formations left, it was pretty much firing at targets of opportunity. TV footage was already showing up of helicopter gunships strafing soldiers running north on foot and such. Keep it enough and the news spin may go towards the US being out out of control, racking up body count without a military purpose. Civilian casualties in those 48 hours would be a big news item too.
 

jahenders

Banned
Invading Iraq outright would have exceeded the UN mandate and risked alienating the United States Arab allies and at least have risked a protracted conflict which the administration was presumably keen to avoid. Given those conditions would Bush have ever been willing to take the risk of marching on to Baghdad? Creating the conditions for a successful 1991 rebellion seems more plausible than an outright invasion. But from a practical standpoint how would that happen? If you need to extend the Gulf War by another 48 hours how would that happen without a deliberate decision to overthrow Hussein? How do you put the Bush administration in a position where attack helicopters can be denied?

Religiously radicalized or not it's hard to see the Sunni population embracing what would have been almost inevitably a Shi'ite dominated government. Even in 1991 I think the ethnic/religious tensions in Iraq would lead to post Hussein tension.

Of course a lot would depend on just who would come to power in the aftermath of a successful 1991 uprising and how he would behave towards the Sunni population.

So assuming that the Coalition forces could inadvertently engineer the requisite conditions for a successful 1991 uprising what sort of person would rise to power after Saddam?

Certainly, intentionally trying to bring down Saddam would have exceeded the mandate. However, just extending the war 24-48 hours would have caused a lot more damage and greatly weakened the regime.

So, I think the best option might have been to continue the war for a day or so, advance toward Baghdad, but maybe not enter it proper except to destroy some bases there. US forces can work on managing 'optics' -- taking lots of prisoners, treating prisoners super well, giving supplies to people in areas the Iraqi troops are pushed out of, etc.

Yes, the coalition and/or UN might start calling for a termination of hostilities, but the US could stall and point to ongoing Iraqi violations (using helicopters to attack Iraqis who opposed him, etc) for at least a little while. After all, it was the US-led coalition that came up with the idea of stopping at 100 hours and that was largely because it was a nice, round number. They could have gone with 120 hours (5 days) instead without too much opposition.

In any case, with the additional damage done to the Iraqi military and other instruments of Saddam's power, he might have fallen after the allies left or, at least, had to spend years trying to re-solidify his control. If he fell after the hostilities, we could let the UN take the lead in managing the chaos afterwards.
 
Top