If Bush 41 took Saddam down in 1991?

[President Johnson]

How do you think things would have played out if President Bush Sr. decided to oust Saddam Hussein after liberating Kuwait in 1991? So basically the same as 2003 just twelve years earlier. The Iraq military certainly would have surrendered in a matter of weeks, standing no chance against the US forces. Does the same chaos as in the 2000s emerge or is there a chance the first Bush Administration is better prepared for the aftermath?

I wonder whether an ongoing operation would have allowed Bush to win reelection in a rally around the flag environment? Or whether the opposite happens and in 1992 his reelection bid gets more hopeless than it actually was?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Well there would be many differences from 1991 and 2003:

1. The US would have a force of 750k troops to occupy Iraq rather than 150k which makes it much harder for an insurgency to hold

2. In 2003 the US more or less had the goal of toppling Suddam Hussein so they went straight for Baghdad as their main goals instead of destroying the Iraqi military. In 1991 the US had basically completely encircled the entire Iraqi military and if they continued , the entire Iraqi military would have been either killed or taken prisoner . Keep in mind much of what made up the Iraqi insurgency and later ISIS  were former members of Suddam’s military

3.  2003 was 12 years after brutal sanctions that had destroyed much of iraq as well and had radicalized many people in iraq too


So things likely would have been way better in 1991 than 2003 in terms of occupation but given these factors alone the US Continuing past the original mission would make the US look like an imperial power who massacred a much weaker army . Doing so would very much undermine the type of order the US claimed it wanted to build in the post Cold War world 

[Agonized-Statism]

Bush wins reelection against Clinton, whose lack of foreign policy experience becomes a lot more relevant. Better managed or not, the occupation would feed into radical Islam worldwide, and 9/11 or a similar attack happens on the watch of a Democrat who wins in 1996 and I assume again in 2000. As OTL, Iran steps into the power vacuum of post-invasion Iraq and starts butting heads with the US, and PNAC sets its sights on them instead: 9/11 is eventually used as pretext for an invasion either there or against "Shi'ite Axis" member Syria. By the late 2000s, the US is occupying three Middle East countries (assuming Afghanistan still happens) and not doing great. The European migrant crisis, populist wave, etc. are all amplified.

[NewYorkExpress]

9/11 happens at least half a decade earlier for one.

As for whether Bush wins reelection, I'm not sure he still does. The economy sinking in 1992 had little if anything to do with the war in Kuwait, and I think the recession still happens and Clinton wins (or possibly Perot with Clinton finishing in third).

I think the most likely scenario if Bush (H.W, Dubya or Jeb) post 9/11, assuming Iraq is still occupied by U.S troops is a simultaneous invasion of Afghanistan (take out the Taliban) and Saudi Arabia (punish them for their support of terrorism, induce regime change, possibly install an American puppet Government). The Afghanistan invasion would go as it did IRL, the Saudi invasion would be a massive failure and lead to numerous terrorist attacks, and Republicans getting discredited for generations.

[DaleCooper]

I was under the impression that the Gulf War was already seen as a great victory and the height of Bush's popularity. Am I wrong about that? I don't think deposing Saddam would've made Bush any more popular in the long run, especially since the ensuing chaos of a leaderless Iraq would be a concern that would probably overshadow whatever shallow patriotism people were enjoying during the Gulf War that happened in our timeline.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I was under the impression that the Gulf War was already seen as a great victory and the height of Bush's popularity. Am I wrong about that? I don't think deposing Saddam would've made Bush any more popular in the long run, especially since the ensuing chaos of a leaderless Iraq would be a concern that would probably overshadow whatever shallow patriotism people were enjoying during the Gulf War that happened in our timeline.

Keep in mind in 1991 we would have had 750k troops on the ground and not 150k which makes it easier to stamp out an insurgency. Also keep in mind that the people who made up much of the original military were former members of Suddam's military as in 2003 we went straight for Baghdad instead of trying to destroy their military first while in 1991, we basically were on the verge of completely encircling the entire Iraqi military so if we continued it is very likely we would have literally destroyed their entire military.

I believe this was the reason we did not do this as killing more than half a million Iraqi soldiers while losing 200 of your own would be considered a massacre especially given that we would have done that after already completing the state mission and would have created a horrible precedent for the future too. President George HW Bush unlike President George W Bush was able to see the bigger picture and ultimately made the right decision by not taking out Suddam in 1991.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

An important thing is that HW had capable advisors like James Baker to balance out the oil shills like Cheney.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I was under the impression that the Gulf War was already seen as a great victory and the height of Bush's popularity. Am I wrong about that? I don't think deposing Saddam would've made Bush any more popular in the long run, especially since the ensuing chaos of a leaderless Iraq would be a concern that would probably overshadow whatever shallow patriotism people were enjoying during the Gulf War that happened in our timeline.

Yeah, Bush already had a 90% approval rating. I'm not sure how this really helps him.

[The Mikado]

Incredibly unlikely that the war itself pushes on. Bush's Arab allies (a major part of the international coalition) were deeply skeptical on pushing on and the entire justification of the war was to protect Saudi Arabia and expel the Iraqis from Kuwait. Furthermore, the incredible international cooperation in a moment of severe crisis (even the USSR was OK with the Iraq invasion, in the middle of its collapse) would likely end.

What's more likely is in the massive Iraqi revolt in later 1991 in Southern and Northern Iraq that Bush decided not to intervene in OTL he authorizes air support for. This very likely ensures the rebels' success with a Shia cleric inspired regime in most of Iraq and a (larger than IRL) Kurdish pseudo-breakaway region autonomous in the north. Now that said, the Shia Arab population of Iraq had just displayed in rather emphatic fashion that they were Arabs first and Shia second in the Iran Iraq War just a few years earlier so I very much doubt people who think this would've produced an Iranian puppet state, but it'd definitely be a shaky regime in the heart of the Middle East facing a massive Sunni revolt in Western Iraq. Anbar Province might well become a Baathist loyalist breakaway state under Syrian protection, or even a fundamentalist rogue state (though I think the former is more likely).

I don't think anything changes for Bush, who still loses in 1992. That said, Saudi Arabia will be deeply upset and paranoid having a Shia state right to its north that's culturally aligned with the Shia of its far northeast, and the Turks would absolutely despise an autonomous Kurdistan extending down as far as Kirkuk and might well try to invade to crush it, claiming it's a haven for the PKK.

[Schiff for Senate]

9/11 happens at least half a decade earlier for one.

As for whether Bush wins reelection, I'm not sure he still does. The economy sinking in 1992 had little if anything to do with the war in Kuwait, and I think the recession still happens and Clinton wins (or possibly Perot with Clinton finishing in third).

I think the most likely scenario if Bush (H.W, Dubya or Jeb) post 9/11, assuming Iraq is still occupied by U.S troops is a simultaneous invasion of Afghanistan (take out the Taliban) and Saudi Arabia (punish them for their support of terrorism, induce regime change, possibly install an American puppet Government). The Afghanistan invasion would go as it did IRL, the Saudi invasion would be a massive failure and lead to numerous terrorist attacks, and Republicans getting discredited for generations.

Perot was never winning.

MAYBE at the onset he had a shot at winning the PV, but that vanished soon enough (in no small part due to Perot abruptly dropping out in the middle because of a tantrum before returning a little later). And he NEVER had any chance of winning the actual race - the Electoral College would've made sure of that.

I mean, come on. He won 19% of the popular vote, yes, but he didn't win a single vote or even come very close where it matters - the Electoral College.

At BEST, if Perot did a lot better and Bush was also in a stronger position, I can see Perot clinching some EVs and deadlocking the Electoral College - in which case, whichever party controlled the majority of state delegations in the House (I'd guess the Democrats), would win the White House.

Even this scenario is very unlikely, but it's not entirely impossible and could have occurred in an alternate TL, whereas Perot somehow winning the necessary 270 EVs was never happening, no matter what.

[(no subject)]

An important thing is that HW had capable advisors like James Baker to balance out the oil shills like Cheney.

"blood for oil" is absurd. If the United States wants Middle Eastern oil, it can just buy it, as it did both before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

(too many on these boards are pretty much "We're not fascists, we're Marxist-Leninists!" - https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DistinctionWithoutADifference )