What if Iraq was invaded after the gulf war?

Based on what? The fact that the coalition members pull out because they didn't want to topple Saddam? How does that generate a a broader occupying force? Dick Cheney himself was against an occupation of Iraq in 1991 and he isn't known to be a dove.
In this scenario the entire coalition join in the invasion. The US contingent alone was larger than in ‘03 and once again, in this scenario all members agree to go in. So it’s much larger and facing a different situation than in ‘03 and presumably better leadership.
That “significantly larger coalition” is going to disappear pretty quick when the Arab nations back out.
Pretty sure I said this earlier but idk but in this scenario they aren’t backing out.
An invasion to topple Saddam would have been a deal-breaker for the Soviet Union. Even a 'moderate' like Gorbachev supported the liberation of Kuwait, not overthrowing Hussein and turning Iraq into an American client state.
And what will he do other than grumble? If he even cares? He’s got enough shit to deal with and can’t afford any sort of spat with the US or anyone.
 
In this scenario the entire coalition join in the invasion. The US contingent alone was larger than in ‘03 and once again, in this scenario all members agree to go in. So it’s much larger and facing a different situation than in ‘03 and presumably better leadership.

Pretty sure I said this earlier but idk but in this scenario they aren’t backing out.

And what will he do other than grumble? If he even cares? He’s got enough shit to deal with and can’t afford any sort of spat with the US or anyone.

*Why* are they not backing out though? Because OTL they were firmly against regime change in Iraq.
 
*Why* are they not backing out though? Because OTL they were firmly against regime change in Iraq.
Well first off tnis isn’t why they’re doing X, Y, or Z. Only what if this happened. But if you need a reason then perhaps this time they’re feeling a bit more paranoid or the Bush v1 administration was able to convince them through various means to join in. Or maybe Saddam was assinated and no one wanted an unstable Iraq falling apart with chemical weapons floating around. Pick your choice, but either way there’s a proper invasion and occupation.
 
Well first off tnis isn’t why they’re doing X, Y, or Z. Only what if this happened. But if you need a reason then perhaps this time they’re feeling a bit more paranoid or the Bush v1 administration was able to convince them through various means to join in. Or maybe Saddam was assinated and no one wanted an unstable Iraq falling apart with chemical weapons floating around. Pick your choice, but either way there’s a proper invasion and occupation.
Without a valid case for intervention, the coalition wil be an early version of 'the coalition of the willing' - you could look at Tony Blair to see how that how affected his reputation.
While I'm pretty sure that enough military strength could be mustered, the absence of permission for overflights, acceptance of the outcome, supply of fuel from gulf states, etc would hinder the build up, erode popular support, slow the victory. And if the invasion was successful, it's much harder to rebuild a society when neighbouring states oppose your ideas (including to the point of supporting insurgencies).
Personally I think it would have been better in the long run to finish the job properly the first time [1] but I see why they didn't.

[1] for that matter, doing a proper job the second time around would have been a good idea, rather than doing a bodge job. In my experience, things might not always be expensive for a reason, but they are always cheap for a reason, and Gulf War 2 was definitely done on the cheap.
So in short, simply saying that the original coalition wants to invade doesn't fly because an intent to invade changes the coalition, so another POD is needed to allow a pro-invasion coalition while meeting UN goals.
 
Based on what? The fact that the coalition members pull out because they didn't want to topple Saddam? How does that generate a a broader occupying force? Dick Cheney himself was against an occupation of Iraq in 1991 and he isn't known to be a dove.
Would be more than the handful of divisors that were there in the second gulf war.
probably also wouldn’t make the stupid mistake of letting others settle their scores and thinking that’d make things all ok.
 
If the Coalition members threaten to leave and Bush Sr. says go ahead, what can the coalition members really do at that point?

Saudi Arabia isn't going to piss off America at that point, especially when the US has hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the region as well as the economic ties between the two countries.

The Coalition members were bluffing.

I wouldn't go for a permanent occupation or state building because then you would have issues. I think Bush Sr could however march on Baghdad and demand Saddam's head on a platter.

Also keep in mind that at this point Saddam's regime hasn't adopted Islamic Fundamentalism yet so I don't think a terrorist insurgency is really in the cards.
 
Top