US advanced all the way into Baghdad - Historum

kevinthecool · August 5th, 2008, 08:17 PM

Latest News Fiction Sometime in 1991

Saddam Hussien goes loony, and launches a chemical warhead at US troops. 1,000 + soldiers die. Bush Sr, retaliates by ordering Schwarz whatever his name advance all the way to Baghdad.

Okay.... what happens next?

Nick · August 6th, 2008, 12:59 PM

If Saddam used chemical weapons chances are we'd drop a nuke on him.

**Sharks and love** · August 6th, 2008, 01:12 PM

We blow up some more of their stuff then leave.

There's nothing that shows me there's political will for regime change.

motiv-8 · August 7th, 2008, 08:44 AM

Same thing that happened in 2003.

mlipo · August 7th, 2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by motiv-8

Same thing that happened in 2003.

Hmmmm...I wonder. The US had a bigger military in 1991, and we had a much bigger coalition. Do you think we would have been able to put more troops in country to deal with the problems, which might mean more stability?

Nick · August 7th, 2008, 09:25 AM

America had UN support back then as well. And the coalition was made up of many Arab countries, a far more acceptable occupying force for the Iraqis than the current Western coalition.

**Sharks and love** · August 7th, 2008, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick

America had UN support back then as well. And the coalition was made up of many Arab countries, a far more acceptable occupying force for the Iraqis than the current Western coalition.

But none of them wanted us going into baghdad.

motiv-8 · August 7th, 2008, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlipo

Hmmmm...I wonder. The US had a bigger military in 1991, and we had a much bigger coalition. Do you think we would have been able to put more troops in country to deal with the problems, which might mean more stability?

It wasn't that much bigger, certainly not big enough according to estimates made during the war planning in the early 2000s. The coalition also would have dissolved had we advanced to Baghdad, as Sharks and love pointed out -- most of the major partners were Arab countries that were vehemently against overthrowing Saddam at that point.

The only thing that may have led to more stability is the fact that there were cooler heads around at the time. Al-Sadr the Elder was still alive, and he was a lot more 'level' than his son has been. Al-Khoei was also alive, who even though officially a quetist was much more active than al-Sistani has been. The bitterness that many Shi'a, prominent or not, felt against the United States in the late 90s wasn't there, so maybe they would have been all the more amenable. Saddam loyalist insurgency would still probably have been an issue, however.

Oh, and Iran was still recovering from its war with Iraq, so the supposed active support for Iraqi Shi'ites would have been a complete non-issue.

mlipo · August 7th, 2008, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by motiv-8

It wasn't that much bigger, certainly not big enough according to estimates made during the war planning in the early 2000s. The coalition also would have dissolved had we advanced to Baghdad, as Sharks and love pointed out -- most of the major partners were Arab countries that were vehemently against overthrowing Saddam at that point.

The only thing that may have led to more stability is the fact that there were cooler heads around at the time. Al-Sadr the Elder was still alive, and he was a lot more 'level' than his son has been. Al-Khoei was also alive, who even though officially a quetist was much more active than al-Sistani has been. The bitterness that many Shi'a, prominent or not, felt against the United States in the late 90s wasn't there, so maybe they would have been all the more amenable. Saddam loyalist insurgency would still probably have been an issue, however.

Oh, and Iran was still recovering from its war with Iraq, so the supposed active support for Iraqi Shi'ites would have been a complete non-issue.

To tell you the truth, I wasn't even thinking about Arab countries...

Anyway, good points. It seems that the US Army was about 33% larger in 1991 than 2003. That at least, is pretty significant.

I was just throwing out the idea of a larger US military as something to think about, because in the present war 10-20 thousand troops seem to make a pretty big difference.

motiv-8 · August 7th, 2008, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlipo

To tell you the truth, I wasn't even thinking about Arab countries...

Anyway, good points. It seems that the US Army was about 33% larger in 1991 than 2003. That at least, is pretty significant.

I was just throwing out the idea of a larger US military as something to think about, because in the present war 10-20 thousand troops seem to make a pretty big difference.

No, you're right. I didn't take a good enough look at the numbers. We brought how many, 450k, 500k to the party? That's actually how many it was recommended we send in 2003 to effectively control and stabilize the control.