What if Bush41 had continued to Baghdad and destroyed the Iraqi regime?

[Zkribbler]

An interesting hypothetical posed by Ned in a different thread

The U.N. Coalition has driven Iraq from Kuwait. Much of the regular Iraqi Army lies in smoldering heaps along the Highway of Death. The Republican Guard has been mauled and is surrounded.

But in this hypothetical, George H.W. Bush doesn't call a halt to the war but instead gives the order to march on Baghdad. What happens next?

[lord of the mark]

extremely foolish.

he didnt need to march to Baghdad. The Shiite and Kurdish risings had practically taken Baghdad already. All he would have needed to do was to refuse the Iraqi military permission to fly helicopters, and enforce the same rules against Iraqi choppers tha were already agreed to wrt Iraqi fixed wing aircraft.

No choppers, the Iraqi army, melting away, cant stop the rebellions. And this time, unlike OTL 2003, they havent established in advance a network for a Sunni Insurgency.

[Odin]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
extremely foolish.

he didnt need to march to Baghdad. The Shiite and Kurdish risings had practically taken Baghdad already. All he would have needed to do was to refuse the Iraqi military permission to fly helicopters, and enforce the same rules against Iraqi choppers tha were already agreed to wrt Iraqi fixed wing aircraft.

No choppers, the Iraqi army, melting away, cant stop the rebellions. And this time, unlike OTL 2003, they havent established in advance a network for a Sunni Insurgency.

Exactly, had Poppy Bush supported the Shia uprising Saddam would of been history.

Why didn't Bush Sr support the uprising, anyway? Was he afraid of angering the Sunni Arab countries by supporting Shiite dominance in Iraq?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Odin


Exactly, had Poppy Bush supported the Shia uprising Saddam would of been history.

Why didn't Bush Sr support the uprising, anyway? Was he afraid of angering the Sunni Arab countries by supporting Shiite dominance in Iraq?

The most common explanation is that Powell saw it as "you broke it you bought it" IE he made no distinction between aiding the rebellion in the way discussed above, and marching to Baghdad. In either case our allies in the region, esp our Saudi friends, would have insisted on a US presence to insure stability.

Im not sure if theres evidence that the Saudis, or the Saudis friends in the admin, were specifically wary of Shiite-Kurdish rule.

Its also not clear that they had really planned for the eventuality. They had made calls for the Iraqis to rise up, but apparently what they had in mind was a military coup, NOT a popular rebellion. They were taken by surprise, and had to react on the fly, and went with their instinct for stability.

Im sure Baker, Powell et al see the current situation in Iraq as confirmation of their wisdom in '91. I think a good case can be made that things would have gone much better in '91. Saddam would have been overthrown by Iraqis, not by the 3rd Inf Division. The infrastructure was in far better shape. There wasnt a preplanned Sunni insurgency. The Shiites had not yet learned to distrust the US.


OTOH this was before the Oslo process, and its not clear if the impact on the Israel-Pal peace process would have been positive or negative. Nor what the impact on US domestic politics would have been, nor on Al Qaeeda.

[Ned]

I think the major reason Bush did not proceed to Baghdad is that there was no justification for it. That would have been a war of aggression, plain and simple.

But, in that other thread you speak of, Z, I also think that the war to get Saddam out of Kuwait was wrong for America as it got us deeply involved in Arab politics, a place we did not want to be.

[Cyclotron]

it got us deeply involved in Arab politics, a place we did not want to be.

You say this as if we weren't already there

[Ned]

Cyclotron, only to the extent we guaranteed Israel's existence.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ned
Cyclotron, only to the extent we guaranteed Israel's existence.

Incorrect. We were deeply involved with Arab politics before the Gulf War that had nothing to do with Israel. The Iran-Iraq war and our support for Saudi Arabia are only the two most well-known examples.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Realistically, if the US followed realist IR policy, it'd want to safeguard our interests. It probably became very evident that securing access to oil was in the US's interests and thus we'd be very interested in Arab politics and the impact it would have on that commodity.

[Ned]

Imran, oil is a fungible commodity. Regardless of who is in power, it has to be sold to a market. There is no Arab oil monopoly where the Arabs could harm the US by cutting us off and selling instead to only Europe. We would just get oil from Europe that they now do not need.

Now, if they did have a monopoly, the anwser to this question would be different.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
Imran, oil is a fungible commodity. Regardless of who is in power, it has to be sold to a market. There is no Arab oil monopoly where the Arabs could harm the US by cutting us off and selling instead to only Europe. We would just get oil from Europe that they now do not need.

Now, if they did have a monopoly, the anwser to this question would be different.

Er.. 1970s oil shock ring any bells? They wouldn't have to threaten to cut the US off and sell to Europe... they'd just have to threaten to produce less.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Er.. 1970s oil shock ring any bells? They wouldn't have to threaten to cut the US off and sell to Europe... they'd just have to threaten to produce less.

Imran, true. But the real problem was not the embargo, but the price controls that fostered shortages.

It would have been a lot better for the US if we never would have gotten so deeply involved in Arabia.

[Lord Avalon]

It would have been a lot better for the US if God had located our oil in a place better than Arabia. [/Stephen Colbert]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
It would have been a lot better for the US if God had located our oil in a place better than Arabia. [/Stephen Colbert]

Bingo

[Will9]

It would have been much easier to overthrow Saddam in 91. The rebellions combined with the fact that most the insurgens we're facing today were armed by Saddam to crush those rebellions.