Iraq gets invaded during the Gulf War

Feb 2017
22
State of Gold
#1
Alright, so because this war was going so smoothly and the Coalition had complete domination, what if in Operation Desert Storm, the Coalition forces decided to launch a counteroffensive on the very head of the enemy, Baghdad, and just like in WWII where the Allies had a counterinvasion against Hitler for his own invasions, the Coalition decided to launch a counterinvasion against Saddam for his invasion.

Here are some ideas of conversation for this thread: Would Bush I and his crew be able to handle the invasion and the aftermath better than his son? Would ISIS appear around around 10 years earlier? Would the American people be okay with this invasion?
Would Iraq be peaceful in an alternate 2017 where 2003's events started more than a decade before and got over with? Would Bill Clinton be elected, since there'd probably be a war going on at that time and I'd imagine a wartime leader would be desirable to ensure operations go smoothly instead of a peaceful, domestic leader (I really don't know very much about Bill Clinton nor his ability to handle international incidents or wars, I'm assuming he was a great peacetime leader, but I don't know much about his presidency tbh, but this is besides the point)? Would 9/11 occur?
 
Last edited:
Mar 2010
9,842
#2
Would 9/11 occur. Don't know. It depends on how quickly the Iraqi civil war ends. Iraq was always going to erupt into civil war without a dictator in charge. If the Iraqi civil war lasts several years I can see Bin Laden and co, moving to Iraq rather than Afghanistan and then being turned into Swiss Cheese the moment they decide to start attacking US assets and allies.
 
Jan 2013
48
#3
The difference is the coalition. GWB was unable to get NATO to agree to Iraq. So French, Italian, and German troops were not involved. On an individual basis he was able to get Eastern Europeans involved, like the Baltic states and Poland, but obviously their power was very limited.

GHWB was able to amass a much larger coalition including Gulf States like Saudi Arabia. Now the question is would the coalition have fallen apart over a drive to topple Saddam. I think no, the momentum of it would have dragged them along. This is unlike the second time around when there had been time for doubts to emerge and sympathy for Iraqi sanctions victims to develop.

There wouldn't have been as much foolish idealism. Likely they would have found themselves morally compromised by keeping the state apparatus in place, but at least that would have meant stability. There might not have been as much of an insurgency -- the insurgency was assisted by technological innovations like cell phones which were not as prevalent back in the early 1990's. There likely would have been a much stronger conventional opposition to overcome, as Iraq would not have been weakened by the sanctions.

Possibly 9-11 does not occur.
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,808
Dispargum
#4
Bin Laden's motivation for all of his attacks on the US and US interests was his resentment over the US presence in the Middle East. That would not change in this ATL so 9/11 would occur.

I agree with Lawnmowerman that Iraq was always going to erupt into civil war without Sadam Hussein in charge.

There would have been support for a drive on Baghdad in March of 1991. Baghdad would have fallen by April or May at the latest, but by early 1992 an Iraq civil war would have broken out. Support for the war would have faded by the election. Assuming there was still a recession and that Bush had still broken his promise to not raise taxes, Bush would not have been reelected. Depending on how significant the war was during the primary campaign, Clinton might not have gotten the Democratic nomination, but the Democratic candidate does not matter. The result would be the same no matter who ran against Bush.
 
Jul 2016
8,941
USA
#5
Iraq was always going to erupt into civil war without a dictator in charge.
So the only norm for Middle Eastern nations is to have a violent dictator "representing" a sliver of the ethnic minority, while oppressing the vast majority, in a system that makes apartheid look tame?

I bet money that whatever people you descend from, at some point and time someone said of them "The only way to control them is with an iron fist" or something to that fashion...
 
Mar 2010
9,842
#6
So the only norm for Middle Eastern nations is to have a violent dictator "representing" a sliver of the ethnic minority, while oppressing the vast majority, in a system that makes apartheid look tame?

I bet money that whatever people you descend from, at some point and time someone said of them "The only way to control them is with an iron fist" or something to that fashion...

Your not worth talking too, all you do is search the forum desperately looking for things to take offense too.

Welcome to my ignore list.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2016
8,941
USA
#7
WOW well aren't you a PC cranky pants going through the posts and desperately trying to try find anything to take offense too, never mind if it means making yourself look foolish and derailing threads.
PC? LOL. Cranky pants? Maybe a little.

As an OIF veteran who got the chance to look at some mass graves while I was in Iraq, courtesy of that dictator you think is necessary, when you start talking out your butt you better believe you're going to get a negative response.

For those wishing dictators on others, may karma sticks its boot on your neck as hard as you want others to feel it.
 
Mar 2010
9,842
#8
OK lets get one thing straight I did not say that Saddam was a good guy, but that the moment he was removed from power Iraq would descend into civil war.

It was inevitable after the oppression of 75% of the country that it would happen.


In fact it was probably better for the Iraqi people that he was removed by an international task force as at least that meant they had a responsibility to try and maintain order.
 
Mar 2012
18,030
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
#9
^Yes, when a nation had been oppressed for a long time, the victims shall become tyrants. I am not going to be far with the experience of the Philippines in regard to military and politics as basic example of that.

In nations however wherein its people resist to western democracy and legal system, the installation of order when a dictator is out is really difficult.
 
Jul 2016
8,941
USA
#10
OK lets get one thing straight I did not say that Saddam was a good guy, but that the moment he was removed from power Iraq would descend into civil war.

It was inevitable after the oppression of 75% of the country that it would happen.

In fact it was probably better for the Iraqi people that he was removed by an international task force as at least that meant they had a responsibility to try and maintain order.
Okay, I can agree with that. 24 years of an oppressing dictator being removed militarily in the midst of a major religious revival time frame is a recipe for a sectarian violence/revenge killing galore.

But I've heard from far too many people that "such and such can only be governed by a dictator" and other such claims. And frankly, as I've said before, that has probably been said of every people in the world by outsiders, an it was just as wrong a couple hundred years ago referencing Europeans needing an iron fist ruler as it is today in Iraq. Good governance is what they need, not a member of a minority sect oppressing the vast majority through mass killings.
 

Similar History Discussions