What if we (the US & UK) had NOT fought in the Gulf War in 1991?

[SpeedRacer 1]

In the run up to the Gulf War 1991, Osama offered his mujahideen fighters to fight for Saudi Arabia against Saddam Hussein. The Saudis turned down his offer & decided that the USA & other coalition troops would fight for them against Saddam instead.

Osama was pissed about this, and also pissed that the USA had its troops in Saudi Arabia for years afterwards. That was his main motivation for the attacks on the US.

I wonder what would have happened if we'd just stayed out of it back in 1991 & let the Arabs fight each other. (Saudi Arabia & Kuwait vs Iraq)

We wouldn't have had troops in Saudi Arabia & there would be no motivation for the attacks of 9/11.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[miked10270 0]

And the negotiations for Saddam withdrawing from Kuwait would still be going on.

Meanwhile, Al Quaeda would have attacked America for NOT intervening (& thus siding with Iraq).

Osama is a radical Muslim. He hates "unbelievers". He wants to exterminate infidels and ensure the "Victory of Islam". There was no way he'd view Britain & America as doing what's right so it was a classic case of "Damned if you do and damned if you don't".

In effect, there would have been no change.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Not sure if you're right. I think Osama didn't want us involved in that one. Especially if it meant foreign infidel troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia.

Osama actually THANKED the USA for helping Afghanistan rid itself of the Soviets. That was before Al Quaeda came to be. But the point is he wasn't ALWAYS bent on killing us.

In 1991 we could've stayed home & let these maniacs kill each other & have only themselves to blame.

edited to add:

Also,who knows. maybe a coalition of Arab troops would have taken on Iraq. who knows who would win, the point is, we wouldn't be involved in that sandbox over there. And if it's about oil, well, whoever's running things over there can either continue to sell us oil or starve.

fuck 'em all, I say.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 4]

There are some historical "What If" questions that can kind of be answered and some that really can't.

I think this falls into the "really can't" category.

Far too many variables.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SpeedRacer 1]

well, we can start by looking at the good things and the bad things that resulted from our involvement in the Gulf War.

It seems to me that the bad results outweighed the good results.

Good result: We liberated Kuwait & helped out Saudi Arabia. whoopty shit. Yeah, the Arabs are REAL grateful & happy with us now.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 4]

Quote

well, we can start by looking at the good things and the bad things that resulted from our involvement in the Gulf War.

While that -sounds- good on the surface, you can NEVER tell when a historically good thing is going to instantly turn into a historically bad thing.

For instance, arming Osama bin Laden at one point in our history sounded like a "good" thing.

Doh!

Never forget that we created him in the first place.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

I think I would have been much better off financially.

I demand reparations.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[akarunway 1]

Quote

In the run up to the Gulf War 1991, Osama offered his mujahideen fighters to fight for Saudi Arabia against Saddam Hussein. The Saudis turned down his offer & decided that the USA & other coalition troops would fight for them against Saddam instead.

Osama was pissed about this, and also pissed that the USA had its troops in Saudi Arabia for years afterwards. That was his main motivation for the attacks on the US.

I wonder what would have happened if we'd just stayed out of it back in 1991 & let the Arabs fight each other. (Saudi Arabia & Kuwait vs Iraq)

We wouldn't have had troops in Saudi Arabia & there would be no motivation for the attacks of 9/11.

I believe Bush Sr. did the right thing at the time. Stopped the threat and withdrew. Shrub ain't got a clue

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

While that -sounds- good on the surface, you can NEVER tell when a historically good thing is going to instantly turn into a historically bad thing.

It just as easy to say the opposite. But even harder to prove.

Had the French moved in when Hitler rearmed the Rhineland, would it have stopped the Third Reich while it was still vunerable? Or would WW2 just have taken a few more years to happen, and a war in which the Nazi scientists had the Bomb and the Ark!

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

For instance, arming Osama bin Laden at one point in our history sounded like a "good" thing.

as I pointed out in the other thread, we did not arm Osama bin Laden. The money went to the Afghan mujahideen, not the Arab volunteers.

And YTF would Osama need money? He had millions!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[JohnRich 4]

There would be peace and love throughout the Middle East, as well as the remainder of the world. Arabs and Christians would be as brothers. Sunnis and Shiites would live together in harmony. Osama would spend his money building orphanages. AK-47's would be melted down into cooking pots for the poor. Gasoline would sell for only $1 per gallon. And bunnies would hop under rainbow-filled skies.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

And bunnies would hop under rainbow-filled skies.

DEATH TO THE INFIDEL BUNNIES!!! clicky

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,132]

Perhaps a better question -

What if we had not told Saddam Hussein that we didn't really care what he did with Kuwait? What if we had told him "if you invade we're going to stop you and destroy your army" instead of "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait" and "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" ?

There may not have been a Gulf war to begin with.

[kelpdiver 2]

perhaps.

I suspect SH was like any 100 jump wonder shopping for approval to get an elliptical. Keep asking till you hear the answer you like.

[misaltas 0]

Quote

Perhaps a better question -
What if we had not told Saddam Hussein that we didn't really care what he did with Kuwait?

Suuure, he would have chosen that single opportunity to allow the US to dictate his foreign policy, economic goals, and use of his military to take back the '19th province' that he believed belong to Iraq anyway.

Glaspie's articulation of the US's position of non-involvement (granted, later we flip-flopped) might have been a nudge, but that dude was taking Kuwait. The Iraqi army was headed that way long before Glaspie's comments. I mean, who the hell could've predicted we'd be able to build an Arab coalition, and keep Israel out of it. Gotta hand it to Bush Sr.

That said, quade's 'too many variables' is got to be the closest to correct. 'What if' can be fun though.

Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

[Guest]

Quote

Perhaps a better question -

What if we had not told Saddam Hussein that we didn't really care what he did with Kuwait? What if we had told him "if you invade we're going to stop you and destroy your army" instead of "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait" and "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" ?

There may not have been a Gulf war to begin with.

I think that was partly miscommunication, mishandling of Saddam at the time, and a simple case of Saddam hearing what he wanted to hear.

Saddam was an incompetent military adventurer. His disastrous invasion of Iran is a textbook case of someone who seriously misunderstood and underestimated his opponent.

And before you can compare him to Dubya, I'm going to cut you off. Please re-read "Why Arabs Lose Wars".

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Hawkins121 0]

who cares what Osama wanted?

[Gawain 0]

First off, France and Germany also had major offensive forces in the region at the time, as did Saudi Arabia. There were also another 30+ nations that assembled.

Had Saudi Arabia allowed Osama's fighters to "defend" the kingdom, then Saudi would still have run the risk of being overrun by Iraq (which was a real concern).

It would also have done nothing to free the Kuwaitis from under the boot of Hussein, which was the demand of the world.

Osama was a fighter in search of a fight, if not us, he would have found someone. Eventually, our hand would have been forced.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Skyrad 0]

Hate to say it but that was just the trigger for the attacks. The conflict between radical Islamists and the west has been on the horizon since the 80s at least. If one takes the warped theology behind its inception its actually been comming since its inception back in the 50s. My brother and I discussed these times we live in back in the early 1980s, it was very predictable but the west chose to ignore the threat due to the fact that at the time the Soviet empire was a larger and more imenent threat and the Islamists were prepaired to fight what we chose to see as proxy wars for us.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[billvon 3,132]

>Suuure, he would have chosen that single opportunity to allow the
> US to dictate his foreign policy, economic goals, and use of his military . . .

Well, he would have chosen that opportunity to keep himself in power. The one thing he excelled at was staying in power, and he knew that to do that, he had to curry favor with the US. (Remember, he was our ally for quite a while.) Had he known his army would have been destroyed as a result of the Kuwait invasion he would not have tried it.

>but that dude was taking Kuwait.

I'd recommend "the threatening storm" by Pollack for an interesting overview of that time. Basically Saddam wanted Kuwait for its oil and he thought we wouldn't care; heck, we egged him on when he wanted to invade Iran. He wasn't a brilliant military leader, but he was smart enough to not invade a country if his defeat was assured (which it certainly was if we got involved.) Thus he needed assurances that we wouldn't retaliate. He got them (or thought he did) from Glaspie. As someone else mentioned, it was probably a combination of a very poor choice of words by Glaspie and Saddam hearing what he wanted to hear.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

And bunnies would hop under rainbow-filled skies.

DEATH TO THE INFIDEL BUNNIES!!!

Damn. You just had to go and spoil peace on earth for all mankind.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

What if we had not told Saddam Hussein that we didn't really care what he did with Kuwait? What if we had told him "if you invade we're going to stop you and destroy your army" instead of "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait" and "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" ?

Then you approve of our current strategy with Iran and North Korea, even though it involves veiled threats of military action?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Please re-read "Why Arabs Lose Wars".

That was excellent. Thanks for the reference.

And I would add: When things go to hell, instead of proactively trying to do something about it, the Arabs just put their fate in the hands of Allah.

[misaltas 0]

Quote

I'd recommend "the threatening storm" by Pollack for an interesting overview of that time.

Appreciated, will do.

That said, with our 1990 hats on for a moment, I simply don't believe most in the world, including Hussein, (at the time please) thought that we would be willing and determined to project our military so heavily in SW Asia under any circumstances, to include defending Kuwait. I know that's difficult for us to get our minds around today after the last 16 years of action in the area ranging from Clinton's missile strikes sandwiched between two lengthy all-out invasions.

Quote

Had he known his army would have been destroyed as a result of the Kuwait invasion he would not have tried it.

The answer to that is that is was not all that guaranteed or even believable that this would have been our response, nor the end result. And even if he did, also remember that he also had great faith in his military to include the republican guard to defend Kuwait once taken. Sure, didn't turn out to be true, but this "what if" game is trying to climb inside Hussein's head in 1990.

Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

[Guest]

It's a hard and simple fact of life that no nation goes to war until it has somehow convinced itself that it's worth the cost.

A corollary to this is that throughout history, most nations that start wars usually end up regretting it.

These aren't my remarks; they are in the introduction to James F. Dunnigan's "How to Make War". The introductory chapter is titled "How to Be An Effective Armchair General".

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."