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

[Dr Strangelove]

The Iraqi Civil War would have begun in 1991 instead of 2003. Iraqi Sunni and Shiite would have begun their inevitable death struggle. General Schwartzkopf would have put in for retirement at approximately the same time as he did in our timestream. His successor would to this day still be cursing his name for having had the quagmire dumped upon him.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The Iraqi Civil War would have begun in 1991 instead of 2003. Iraqi Sunni and Shiite would have begun their inevitable death struggle. General Schwartzkopf would have put in for retirement at approximately the same time as he did in our timestream. His successor would to this day still be cursing his name for having had the quagmire dumped upon him.

I wish this were only hindsight, but most in the Bush I admin predicted this would be the outcome of an invasion of Iraq itself.

Still, such a war at the time would have had no just cause, IMHO. Iraq had not attacked the US, and Kuwait was liberated. Where is the justification for such a war?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


I wish this were only hindsight, but most in the Bush I admin predicted this would be the outcome of an invasion of Iraq itself.

Still, such a war at the time would have had no just cause, IMHO. Iraq had not attacked the US, and Kuwait was liberated. Where is the justification for such a war?

There really would be none. I also think the notion that the Shiite rebellion would have worked to be wrong. While the Iraqi army got beaten severaly by the Coolition, most of the better Republican Guard units made it out in fighting shape, and the damage to the Iraqi army was grossly overblown in the press at that time. While letting Saddam use attack Helicopters against the Shia certainly helped Saddam put the rebellion down faster, the Shiite rebels lacked any heavy weaponry to take on the Iraqi army. And the Sunni allies of the US, nor the US, would have accepted some Shiite version of the autonomous Kurdish north, if only because of the Guld kingdom's fear of accendant Shiite power.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


There really would be none. I also think the notion that the Shiite rebellion would have worked to be wrong. While the Iraqi army got beaten severaly by the Coolition, most of the better Republican Guard units made it out in fighting shape, and the damage to the Iraqi army was grossly overblown in the press at that time. While letting Saddam use attack Helicopters against the Shia certainly helped Saddam put the rebellion down faster, the Shiite rebels lacked any heavy weaponry to take on the Iraqi army. And the Sunni allies of the US, nor the US, would have accepted some Shiite version of the autonomous Kurdish north, if only because of the Guld kingdom's fear of accendant Shiite power.

IIRC in the past you have opined that unelected governments are legitimate because if they did not substantially enjoy the support of the populations under their control those populations would overthrow them.

From your description of the prospects of the rebellion in 1991 it would seem that in at least some cases such popular overthows are improbable if not impossible.

Do you believe that unelected governments have true legitmacy or do you simply believe that they can manage to obtain mere defacto legitimacy from external acknowledgment of their positions?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo


IIRC in the past you have opined that unelected governments are legitimate because if they did not substantially enjoy the support of the populations under their control those populations would overthrow them.

From your description of the prospects of the rebellion in 1991 it would seem that in at least some cases such popular overthows are improbable if not impossible.

Do you believe that unelected governments have true legitmacy or do you simply believe that they can manage to obtain mere defacto legitimacy from external acknowledgment of their positions?

I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion, but I will play:

I do not believe that there is some absolute judge that determines legitimacy. I personally believe that the best system, the "right" system is one in which legitimacy is created by the choice of the citizenship, but obviously this is not the only way that a system will build legitimacy. They can do it through appeals to some greater ideology ( the Nation, the Faith, the {insert class here})

Now, most modern dictatorial systems are inherently "popular", in the sense that they can really only surive because a significant portion of the population (even if not a majority) do support the regime. Even in a place like NK there has to be some constituency that supports the continuation of the system, otherwise the system will collapse.

The same secterian politics at play in Iraq today existed in 1991. Remember, it was poor Shiites in the south that rebelled, it wasn;t some "national" revolt from all sectors. This meant that Saddam had enough backing in Iraq to at least ensure that his Army would not desert him, and given that no one was about to supply the poor Shiites in the south with heavy weaponry, even if the Iraqi regime could not use attack helicopters they had the firepower to crush or contain the revolt. Modern dictatorial regimes fall from the inside only when their army is either defeated, and this will be the case mostly for weak and smaller states, or when the rank and file of the army decide to sit things out, as happened in Iran in '79, or in Romania in '89, or the USSR in '91. In all those examples the army was subject to the same popular sentiments that drove people into the street against the regime. I don;t think that mass popular pressure existed in Iraq in '91.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Geronimo


IIRC in the past you have opined that unelected governments are legitimate because if they did not substantially enjoy the support of the populations under their control those populations would overthrow them.

From your description of the prospects of the rebellion in 1991 it would seem that in at least some cases such popular overthows are improbable if not impossible.

Do you believe that unelected governments have true legitmacy or do you simply believe that they can manage to obtain mere defacto legitimacy from external acknowledgment of their positions?

Geronimo, do you believe that a factor in the calculus for a just war is whether the regime against which you go to war is legitimate?

Back to Iraq for a moment:

Wilson, among others, argued that every people have a right of self-determination. A corolary to this right, it would seem, is that if they revolt against a regime under they are held against their will, the international community should support that rebellion because the rebellion itself is a sign of oppression.

But Iraq '91 certainly shows us the flaws in this thinking, does it not? Under Wilsonian thinking, we should have supported the Shi'ite rebellion, especially since we had a large army sitting right there at the time. But the experience of 2003-07 has shown us that intevening to support such a revolt in folly at best.

Kissinger argued prior to our intevening in Kosovo that it is at times better for minorites to remain under the rule of a larger polity. Kosovo, with its mixed Serb and Albanian peoples, was a good example. He opined that if we were to throw out the Yugoslave army, we would be required to have a large army there ourselves for an indefinite future to protect the Serbs from the Albanians as the Serbs would now be the "oppressed" minority.

I am sure that our endless turmoil in the ME regarding Israel would not have occurred had the British simply turned the whole area over to Arab control as they promised. Both the Turks before them and the Arabs were quite supportive of Jewish immigration until the British betrayal. The Arab revolt for a long period of time was mainly an effort to get the Brits out of their land.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
A corolary to this right, it would seem, is that if they revolt against a regime under they are held against their will, the international community should support that rebellion because the rebellion itself is a sign of oppression.

Ah, the Nixon Doctrine.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Ah, the Nixon Doctrine.

Nixon?

Sounds a lot like the American Revolution or any number of revolutions over the ages.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by GePap


There really would be none. I also think the notion that the Shiite rebellion would have worked to be wrong. While the Iraqi army got beaten severaly by the Coolition, most of the better Republican Guard units made it out in fighting shape, and the damage to the Iraqi army was grossly overblown in the press at that time. While letting Saddam use attack Helicopters against the Shia certainly helped Saddam put the rebellion down faster, the Shiite rebels lacked any heavy weaponry to take on the Iraqi army. And the Sunni allies of the US, nor the US, would have accepted some Shiite version of the autonomous Kurdish north, if only because of the Guld kingdom's fear of accendant Shiite power.

The Bush administration's encouragement of the Kurdish and Shiite rebellions in 1991-1992 can be compared to the Bay of Pigs incident. In both cases the US underestimated the strength of the opposition and in both cases it let down an insurgency counting on the US for support.

I wonder what would have happened if the US hadn't put out so much PR about the extent of the damage done to the Iraqi Army during the brief Gulf War I ground war. Supose Schwartzkopf, instead of blustering about having destroyed the Iraqi Army, had been honest. He should have told the world the thruth, that the Iraqi Army had been damaged, its leaders had seen the handwriting on the wall and had withdrawn it before it could be destroyed. If our Arabian allies had been told the truth would they have been so hasty to tell us to stop, or would they have allowed the first coalition to fight on. Even a few more days might have made a difference. The allies had a sizeable portion of the Iraqi Army cut off in the Bazra area. If the war had continued and that group had been forced to surrender then their arms might have been clandestinely handed over to the Shiite rebellion, similar to the manner in which Stalin's Red Army equipped Mao's forces with Japanese weapons.
Of course, a Shiite rebellion so armed would still have resulted in a bloodbath. People forget that up until the past few years the Sunni run government hid the fact that Shiites were the majority in Iraq. Sunnis still think of the Shiites as usurpers. Many probably have not yet come toi grips with the reality that they are the minority. Many of those who have feel that the Shiites are not entitled to have their fair share in the governing of Iraq. If the Sunnis were faced with a war against the Shiites the in the 1990s the fighting would still have been fierce, perhaps to the death. Today the fighting is fierce and who knows, may be perhaps to the death.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
Nixon?

Wikipedia recalls it differently than I do. As I remember the Nixon Doctrine, he stated we would provide aid to any peoples attempting to rebell from under the yoke of Communism. However, Wiki says:

The Nixon Doctrine was put forth in a press conference in Guam on July 25, 1969 by Richard Nixon. He stated that the United States henceforth expected its allies to take care of their own military defense. The Doctrine argued for the pursuit of peace through a partnership with American allies.

In Nixon's own words (Address to the Nation on the War in Vietnam November 3, 1969)

First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments.
Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.
Third, in cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.

The doctrine was also applied by the Nixon administration in the Persian Gulf region, with military aid to Iran and Saudi Arabia, so that these U.S. allies could undertake the responsibility of ensuring peace and stability in the region. According to Michael Klare, author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency (New York: Henry Holt, 2004), application of the Nixon Doctrine "opened the floodgates" of U.S. military aid to allies in the Persian Gulf, and helped set the stage for the Carter Doctrine and for the subsequent direct U.S. military involvement of the Gulf War and the Iraq War.

[Ned]

Z, your article links the Nixon doctrine with the Iraq war. IMHO, getting US troops involved in ground wars to help other nations is the exact opposite of the Nixon doctrine.

Here is the key phrase:

"in cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense. "

According to Nixon, even when we have a treaty obligation, such as the case of Vietnam, we would not provide ground troops. How does that get us involved in a ground war to liberate Kuwait, a country that had no defense treaty with the US?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned


Geronimo, do you believe that a factor in the calculus for a just war is whether the regime against which you go to war is legitimate?

Back to Iraq for a moment:

Wilson, among others, argued that every people have a right of self-determination. A corolary to this right, it would seem, is that if they revolt against a regime under they are held against their will, the international community should support that rebellion because the rebellion itself is a sign of oppression.

But Iraq '91 certainly shows us the flaws in this thinking, does it not? Under Wilsonian thinking, we should have supported the Shi'ite rebellion, especially since we had a large army sitting right there at the time. But the experience of 2003-07 has shown us that intevening to support such a revolt in folly at best.

Kissinger argued prior to our intevening in Kosovo that it is at times better for minorites to remain under the rule of a larger polity. Kosovo, with its mixed Serb and Albanian peoples, was a good example. He opined that if we were to throw out the Yugoslave army, we would be required to have a large army there ourselves for an indefinite future to protect the Serbs from the Albanians as the Serbs would now be the "oppressed" minority.

I am sure that our endless turmoil in the ME regarding Israel would not have occurred had the British simply turned the whole area over to Arab control as they promised. Both the Turks before them and the Arabs were quite supportive of Jewish immigration until the British betrayal. The Arab revolt for a long period of time was mainly an effort to get the Brits out of their land.

I think it's unethical to attempt to overthrow a democracy (including shady cia plots to accomplish the same not just invasion and war) but I see nothing unethical in overthrowing *any* non democratic government by any ethical means.

Having said all that I think overthrowing a government is something a government in their right mind should almost never attempt as it's always going to be a fustercluck to a greater or lesser degree either achieving it (like in world war 2) or stabilizing it afterward.

In '91 I would have made my poorly veiled attempts to foment a military coup even less veiled and less ambiguous so as to leave no doubt that we weren't volunteering to militarily back a popular uprising.

[Ned]

Geronimo, overthrowing Saddam but leaving the Sunni's in power is one thing. Overthrowing Saddam while leaving the Shi'ites in power would only lead to a regional war as the Sunni's fought back to power.

I think calmer heads in the Bush I admin knew this and called a halt to support for the Shi'ites.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned

According to Nixon, even when we have a treaty obligation, such as the case of Vietnam, we would not provide ground troops. How does that get us involved in a ground war to liberate Kuwait, a country that had no defense treaty with the US?

Moving to defend Kuwait had nothing to do with it being an ally - it had everything to do with the collective security system of the UN. It is vital to recall when the first Gulf War came, right as the Cold War ended, so the paralysis of the UN system created by the direct rivarly of two permament UNSC members. Had the Soviets blocked UN resolutions allowing for military force to drive Iraq from Kuwait then history might have been different.

MOre importantly, the bigger US fear was a Iraqi move into KSA, which was a US ally and who certainly did not have the manpower to defend itself against Iraq mainly on its own.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Both the Turks before them and the Arabs were quite supportive of Jewish immigration until the British betrayal. The Arab revolt for a long period of time was mainly an effort to get the Brits out of their land.

Your ability to tell the most outrageous lies is really quite remarkable- I see no evidence for this Turkish and Arab love of immigration by European Jews into Palestine at the end of the 19th Century.

Do tell us where you're getting your 'unbiased' information from.

It ain't Jewish sources.