Got the idea for this one on CR's recent 'roost' thread. We seem to have developed an interesting (well, interesting to me) tangential discussion about Iraq and Kuwait, and what might have been. Let's have it.

Questions to be debated:
What would have happened had we not intervened/interfered in Kuwait after Saddam's invasion?
What would the Middle East look like today? Would it effect us or other nations and which ones?

Tough question- hoping you wouldn't ask -

I am not sure Mrs P- we are talking one horrible regime for another horrible regime.

I think there should have been more given to saddam BEFORE the need for Saddam to invade, considering he tried to enter into this question diplomatically first.

So, to be fair on the question- what would have happened if we would have enforced some sort of diplomatic solution on Kuwait, and recognized Iraq's very real claims about issues regarding Kuwait? Perhaps it might have even made Saddam a more moderate figure- perhaps a despot by our measures- but not as bad as the Saudis, for instance.

So, had he been "allowed" to invade and occupy Kuwait- I believe there would have been an escalation of tension in the entire area- I think the opportunity for a positive change was lost when no concessions whatsoever were given to the legitimate claims of Iraq, and not recognizing that the goverment of Kuwait- an extended royal family- and it's odd and oppressive nature-with a population of more foriegn nationals in the country than citizens- was oppressive and evil as well- was a mistake.

I would have probably forced a concession that allowed Saddam access to the sea, listened to his complaints and investigated objectively the claims that Kuwait was stealing oil- I think this entire fiasco would have been avoided.

Mrs P- it is our crazy interventions that I have a problem with- Kuwait was obviously as corrupt and oppresive as Saddam was, in fact, at the time, Saddam was a secularlist goverment that gave more rights to his citizens, and took better care of the population in general- than the Kuwaitis did in thier country.

We should have recognized and cultivated that right there, first.

Not giving the green light for exploring a chemical weapons program would have been nice as well.

To me- it was never if we should have intervened when Saddam invaded Kuwait- I think that locked us into a deal we could not get out of- it is the precipitating events leading to the invasion of Kuwait that we flubbed.

Wow. Amazing question...

I think a different democrat would have won in 1992. Sr. Bush's 90 percent war-time approval rating chased a lot of top dogs (like Cuomo) away from the race. Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had never left Arkansas? President Al Gore? President Cuomo? The democratic party would be a different machine.

As to the Middle East? I'm not sure I really fully understood Saddam's intentions in invading Kuwait... did he really think he could outright conquer it, hold it, annex it? What was going on there? Truth is the first casualty of war, and we as a nation may never know, really. By the time the fervor died down the question was neither here nor there.

Yes he did. He'd asked permission from the US ambassador and she'd indicated the USA would have no poblem with Kuwait being annexed. Saddam assumed he'd been given the green light.


What would have happened had we not intervened/interfered in Kuwait after Saddam's invasion?

What would the Middle East look like today? Would it effect us or other nations and which ones?

Greater Iraq would have become the dominant regional power with Saddam Hussein in full control of the largest oil asset on the planet. He would have started to sell his oil in Euro's in order to make even more money and naturally he would have developed his nuclear programme in the same way Iran is doing today, by buying Pakistani and North Korean know how and filling the willing ear of Muhhamed el Baradai with milk and honey promises of a peaceful new Iraq.

Greater Iraq would have become a neutralizing counter weight against Iran, (right up until the day they aunched their nukes at each other) and a significant threat to Saudi Arabia, or more specifically to the House of Saud. Saddam Hussein might have decided to interfere with the internal politics of the Kingdom and who knows, maybe his disregard for the Saudi Royal family might have led him to support opposition forces in Saudi Arabia in order to destabilize the kingdom and promote his own oil selling activities.

Pure idle speculation of course.

The most significant impact of greater Iraq controlling the worlds oil prices would have led to Saddam Hussein having a choke hold on global oil prices. At the time that was considered unacceptable. Today oil prices have reached 120 per barrell and Chavez and Ahmedinejad are laughing themselves silly whilst calling for the price to be raised to 200 per barrell.

The USA would still look strong...
Left wingers would still hate the USA and blame it for everything. Saddam Hussein would be their greatest argument against the 'western imperialism' they were told about at school.
No one would ever have heard of GW Bush.

I hadn't even thought of that. Good point!



I think his intention was pretty clear. He came out of the Iran/Iraq war 70 billion dollars in debt. He never attempted to pay this back, but instead began collecting more weapons at the end of that war. Kuwait was on of his biggest loaners. He could eliminate sharing the Rumaila oilfield that was on the Kuwaiti/Iraq border (the one he accused them of over-drilling/"slant drilling" from), eliminate his debt overnight by absorbing at once its tremendous wealth and his obligation to pay them back, and control the oil supply. Kuwait and the UAE were making a surplus of oil available on the market, which lowered the price to consummers. With Saddam in control of that oil supply he could effectively drive the price of oil up and profit more from that as well, further increasing his regional power.



That's a misconception brought on by selective parsing of the transcript of conversation between April Glaspie and Saddam. Internet sites typically parse it down to one paragraph exchange between the two, taking it out of context. A reading of the full text is necessary to understand the exchange. There was no green light. Nothing in this text would indicate that Saddam either asked to invade Kuwait, or even implied that he would, nor did Glaspie give him permission to do so.

This part is telling. Shatters the 'America armed Iraq with WMD" claims. Unless we were arming Saddam without his knowledge:

What would have happened had we not intervened/interfered in Kuwait after Saddam's invasion?

I justed invented this machine that allows me to read the Internet from alternative universes. Here's what I found on Google when I looked in on the universe where we didn't have the Gulf War:

Chile's Dark Day (September 2003)
September 11th, 1973 the democratically elected President of Chile was violently overthrown in a military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet then governed Chile for 16 years...

OPEC to Iraq: "Sell More" (April 12, 2002)
Nearly 12 years after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and 3 years after Saddam's withdrawal, OPEC has lifted its restrictions on how much oil Iraq could sell on the open market. While not increasing the amount of oil on the global market, Iraq will be permitted to sell a larger percentage of OPEC's total...

Sanctions Lifted (October 1999)
The UN has voted to lift sanctions on Iraq after the final withdrawal of Saddam's Republican Guard from Kuwait and complete verification of the destruction of Saddam's WMD program. The US and Israel abstained. While the US threatened to use its veto, last minute negotiations...

Saddam Will Withdraw (June 1999)
Representatives from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the US have helped broker Saddam's withdrawal from Kuwait. The international outcry, especially by Iraq's neighbors, UN-imposed sanctions as well as an active Iranian-backed insurgency in Kuwait have pressured Saddam's decision...

Where Are Saddam's WMD? (October 1998)
UNSCOM's own estimate is that 90-95% of Iraqi WMDs have been successfully destroyed. Does Saddam have the capability to produce more? This is what further inspections will reveal according to Hans Blix...

Humanitarian Crisis in Baghdad (June 1997)
Years of sanctions have created a humanitarian crisis in Iraq surveys from UNICEF has revealed. "We believe 10s of thousands of children have died already as a result of these sanctions...

Saddam's Troubles (June 1996)
UN-imposed sanctions, a hostile Arab community, continuing battles with freedom fighters in Kuwait and the Kurdish uprising in northern Iraq have all contributed...

Iraq Still Dragging Its Feet (May 1996)
UNSCOM weapons inspectors are being blocked from inspecting certain facilities considered to be potential chemical or biological weapons labs...

Hey, sanctions simply lifted in 1999? What happened to the oil for food?

Well, I agree that sanctions would have ended sooner without the Gulf war. But I don't think that they would have ended after Saddam left Kuwait or as a result of UNSCOM inspections of weapons. There weren't WMD inspections before the Gulf war. I'm not sure how they would enforce inspections without it, having been a condition in the ceasefire agreement. Sanctions have never worked that well.

To answer my topic questions, I think Saddam would still be in Kuwait, there would have been no inspections and the sanctions would be lifted by now. Iraqis would have a much better lifestyle. For Kuwaitis life would be bad, but over half of the population isn't Kuwaiti but poor foreigners so they would probably go back to where they came from. And the richest Kuwaitis left before the invasion, so they wouldn't be back either. Iraq would be a nuclear armed state, like Pakistan, India, Israel. We wouldn't be parked in Kuwait of course. But we might still be a presence in the UAE or Qatar. We probably still would have parked in Saudi to counter Saddam. Obviously we wouldn't have patrolled the no-fly zones, but we might have stayed there at the behest of the Saudi government anyway. If they invited us, I don't think the US government would reject the idea, and then 911 would have likely still happened. I don't think there would have been successful guerrilla movements within Kuwait. Saddam was pretty effective at suppressing those movements, the reason he was able to keep Iraq together and stay in power all of those years.

I also think that the price of oil would have been much higher in the 1990s, Hummers and large SUVs would have never been mainstream, and we would have invested a lot more into alternative fuel sources by now. I wonder what would have happened in Somalia...we might have invested more into that one and tried to stay, converting one of the old Soviet airstrips into a US airbase, since it would be a fairly close strategic location but outside of the ME.

Just speculatin'

Yeah, oil for food would have still happened.


Sanctions were imposed not because of the Gulf War but because of the invasion of Kuwait. Sanctions were later amended after the end of the Gulf War to include WMD disarmament.

Weapons inspection enforcement could have still occurred whether or not there was a Gulf War. The US could have enforced a no fly-zone in the South and the North just like in our real history (enforcement in South would have required troops in Muslim holy land though). In my scenario, I believe Iraq's Arab neighbors (particularly the Saudis) would have done much of the legwork to apply pressure on Saddam for weapons inspections.

Also, I believe an active Iranian-backed insurgency in Kuwait would have systematically destroyed oil wells and pipelines as they were built. In order to force this insurgency down, Saddam would have had to deploy all his resources to hold the territory. A Kurdish uprising in the North (which did happen) would have been largely successful (unlike in our real timeline). If Saddam did have WMD at that point, he may have used them but evidence suggests that his weaponizable WMD program was in decline in the early 1990s. Note that Saddam had changed from being a stabilizing force in the ME (as a buffer against Iran) to a crazy dictator after he invaded Kuwait. The whole world was focused on him -- deploying WMD on the Kuwaitis would have guaranteed an invasion of Iraq but he might have deployed on the Kurds if he had those weapons available. We know he never launched WMD on the US in the Gulf War so it's not clear to me that he really had weaponizable WMD available to him at that time.


Why do think he would still be in Kuwait? How can you discount the pressure that would have been applied by Iraq's Arab neighbors?


How? The Israelis bombed his nuke plant in 1981. After Kuwait, the UN would have permitted bombing as well. And if not the UN, NATO. Where would he get his nuclear material?


Well, we did park in Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwait. But, had we not fought the Gulf War, I agree that parking infidels in Islamic holy land would have precipitated 9/11. Had we not done this, we probably would not have had 9/11. That is, we would have had the same type of terrorist attacks we had before the Gulf War.

How could the Kurdish uprising have been more successful without the complete devastation of Saddam's military forces, as opposed to the complete failure it was even after the devastation of his million man army? Their uprisings prior to the Gulf war certainly didn't end well. Furthermore, without military engagement, and a prior massive air campaign against Saddam's military targets, no fly-zones would not have been possible. When a nation fly's over another's country and patrols it without permission, it is an act of war. 'War' isn't possible without 'war', so if we were flying overhead occupying their airspace, their would have been a significant airwar similar to Kosovo/Bosnia. And that would have required a forces stationed in key spots to launch from. Where would that be if Kuwait were occupied? Qatar is too far.



I don't think that if the world stood by when he invaded and occupied Kuwait it would have invaded if he launched chemical gas on the population. His overthrow of that country was pretty brutal. They were occupied for seven months as it was, and it was a heinous occupation with public torture and summary executions. 16 percent of the population now suffers from psychological ailments. There were no babies in incubators being thrown on the ground as charged, but it wasn't pretty...my husband spent some time there and heard first-hand accounts that made my hair curl. Put it this way, Kuwait was one of the most anti-American governments in the Middle East before the Iran/Iraq war (by anti-American, I mean counter US involvement/influence). They didn't ask for help even when Saddam's forces were literally at the door. A decade and a half after Iraq invaded, they still want us to stay.

And Iraq used chemicals on the Kurds even while we were patrolling the no-fly zones, in 1995. They weren't "chemical weapons", but chemicals used in a way that was counter to international law. They didn't use nerve gas as in Halabja, because they were afraid of retaliation (again) from us (or didn't have them because we bombed them and/or physically removed them from sites). Had we never retaliated in the first place, there would have been no fear of using nerve gas as well as an abundant supply. They used phosphorous weapons and hundreds of thousands of Kurds ran across the border to Turkey. Using phosphorous isn't against the war law if it is used correctly (indirectly), however, spraying people with it from helicopters to burn them as he did, is counter to war law. He didn't use chemical weapons on us during the first Gulf war because he feared nuclear retaliation as well. Remember Bush's not so veiled threats to do just that on television at the time?

Saddam's weapons facilities were not "declining" we bombed a lot of them to the ground. They released sarin into the air and that caused the Gulf war illness that the troops came home with (never officially of course, just 70+ percent rates of infliction for troops in the areas where it occured. Iraq populations living near those facilities were likely also affected. Birth defects were later (baselessly) blamed on depleted uranium. Sarin gas, unlike DU, has been absolutely proven to cause abnormal rates of cancer and birth defects.



Well, I might change my mind if you could cite a case where that type of 'pressure' worked to oust any dictatorship (or to oust an occupation by any other Middle Eastern country) anywhere. Cyprus? Nope. It took over thirty years of pressure and lots of carrots to just to get Syria out of Lebanon, and the UN/ any Arab coalition 'pressure' surely didn't demand comprehensive inspections of their weapons facilities too. How long has Hezzbolah been in Lebanon? When did they disarm as the UN have been pressuring them to do?

Sanctions were added ("amended") to include WMD inspections after the Gulf war as a condition of the ceasefire agreement, after the use of force. We would have been in no position to make such demands otherwise.



Beats me where they got it, but post Gulf war it was uncovered that Iraq had built up a much more developed nuke program than the one the Israelis bombed in 1981. All had built under Hans Blix's nose. How would the UN have uncovered it without mandatory, enforced inspections if they couldn't uncover it prior to the Gulf war while the country was supposedly complying with the IAEA and "under inspection"? Didn't work in North Korea, and it isn't working on Iran. If the UN and/or NATO "permitted bombing" that would be an act of war. I don't think a massive air campaign alone while Saddam occupied Kuwait and kept his army would have ended better than a massive air campaign plus defeat of his million man army while kicking him out of Kuwait.

From my perspective, our wrong moves only started after the Gulf war. We should have left it up to the Middle Eastern coalition after that, and taken our toys all the way home. Instead, we chose to take that opportunity to stay and everything has been screwed up from then on.

Mrs P- I think most folks here recognize that the US did not sell chemical weapons to iraq- but aren't we just as to blame for actually lifting the ban of sales on chemical weapons so that other countries could sell them that stuff?

Hasn't the Turkish killed more of the Kurds than Saddam at this point?

The US would likely have had a bombing campaign. A no fly zone could have been enforced. It wasn't ground troops who took out radar towers and missile launch sites. So, yes, there would have been "war" but just not ground troops in Islamic holy land. I believe an Arab alliance would have supported this and perhaps even to the point of them committing ground troops.



First, I don't think "world would have stood by"; this is a straw man. The world would have done a number things short of deploying US ground forces. Second, using WMD in such a public manner would have had severe ramifications in the Arab world. The fact that he didn't use them during the Gulf War (assuming he had them) is indication enough of the level of concern. Third, yes, Saddam's troops were very brutal to the Kuwaitis; he was a brutal evil dictator. So, your argument is that we what we did in Kuwait is correct because Kuwaitis used to dislike the US but now likes us because we repelled Saddam? If only foreign policy were so simple...


So, you're saying that Saddam had chemical weapons but didn't use them on us because he feared we'd nuke him? We could easily have made the same threat to support the Kuwaitis or even the Kurds. I think if he did have them, he would have used them if he were backed into a corner (which he was during the Gulf War). Instead, I believe that his weaponizable WMD program was in decline; the evidence supports my position.


Stockpiles of sarin fermenting in barrels in a storage facility does not constitute weaponizable WMD. And anyway can you provide links that sarin gas billowing in the air due to US bombs was the cause of Gulf War syndrome?


Sure. Apartheid South Africa, Qaddafi's recent change of heart, Pakistan (Musharraf stepped down as President), Saudi Arabia (Crown Prince Abdullah has allowed some elections to occur). There are more. As for dictators occupying other countries, there just aren't many examples of that in recent history. One thing's for sure, when democracies occupy other countries, they seem to ignore international pressure...


The UN would have added these sanctions. Whether or not they could be enforced is another question entirely.



Really? Post Gulf War discoveries showed this? I really didn't know that. Can you provide links?


I can agree with this. But, that's not the question for debate

But we wouldn't use nukes to defend the Kurds or Kuwait, nor would we have credibility if we made that claim. We didn't use nukes when he employed them on the Kurds or the Iranians, nor did we use nukes on Iran when they gassed Iraq. We would only use them had chemical weapons been launched on us. I do not believe that was an idle threat, and I wouldn't support making that threat idly.



When Iraq made its initial declarations right after the Gulf war, according to them we had successfully destroyed less than 5 percent of its approximately 700 metric tons of chemical agent stockpile by coalition bombing. If 700 metric tons of chemical agent is evidence of a WMD program in decline, I’d hate to see it in full swing. (the first link in my last paragraph gives this data)



Unfortunately all I could find was the NRO. I read this long ago, but I can't remember exactly where. I'll retract that one since I can't find it (I'll try to later...however, it might have been the NRO that I remembered this from, in which case my apologies)

Okay, well...here is more. Perhaps it wasn't just the NRO.


***Regarding Gulf war illness, and Iraqi illness, I don’t know what happened to an old link I had of the Congressional testimony on this issue. It doesn't work anymore. The closest I could come were three individual testimonies that don’t go into specifics. I’ll link to a couple of them. Here and here. Those were part of the Congressional testimony, but don't tell much at all. I wish I could find the thing in its entirety. There was also litigation in UK, and I read the text from those hearings a few years back but cannot find them now either. Here is an article on the subject that touches on what I read before. Here is a BBC article

The above was in much greater detail in the court cases and Senate hearings I’ve read. Although they were considered ‘false alarms’ the detectors were all used again and not considered faulty.

Woohoo! Found something here
Edited to add: No, that's not it either. Crap. There are a few references to it on that link though. Not easy to sort through...

This is a fair point. However, I was coming from the position that once Saddam invaded Kuwait, the game would have changed with regard to Saddam's use of WMD. In fact, it did change, didn't it? So, why do you think our attitude would have been different had we not used ground troops?


Yes, stockpiles of chemicals sitting in barrels does not constitute weaponizable WMD. Moreover, these chemicals have a shelf-life which was expiring. If he did have them available, he certainly didn't use them: not on the Kurds, not on the US. Oh, wait... we would have nuked him if he had used them. Thus, he didn't use them on the Kurds...um... wait that can't be right. You just said that we wouldn't have used nukes if he had used them on the Kurds. Man...I'm confused. What's your position again?


Yeah, this is all I found too. I have a feeling this was from the same source as the "yellowcake" intelligence. Thrown any pitches lately? 'Cause this pitch looks a little...curved.


I'll read through those links; thanks for providing them. As I recall, people were suffering from Gulf War Syndrome that were not at all near any of those facilities that were bombed (and no prevailing winds either). One possible culprit was the anthrax vaccine all the troops were required to have. Anyway, I don't really find this convincing evidence of sarin gas stockpiles. The symptoms were so vague that any number of illnesses could be the cause.

Forgot to respond to this one:



I don't think any of those examples are anywhere close to the case of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. And yes, Democracies (or Democratic republics) are much more likely to respond to international pressure than dictatorships. Suez canal, apartheid, even Iraq (the UNSC reviews and approves MNF in Iraq every year). The closest above, perhaps a salient example, would be Qaddafi's "change of heart". That little change of heart (not usurpation of power or withdrawl from an occupying country) happened after thirty years of sanctions. And Saddam would have been out of Kuwait, with his tail between his legs, within eight years? I really doubt it.

Had we engaged in an air war only, without ground troops, it might have worked I'll fold on that, but that isn't really what I was thinking of in the topic. An air war is a war, IMO. It would have had its own difficulties though...for starters I'm not sure where we would have launched the planes out of on the south side. I don't think we even had ground troops in Saudi, it was our air force that was stationed there.

Also, I'm curious about a point that both you and Trouble made and forgot to mention it earlier... the idea of a potential armed resistence in Kuwait led by Iran. Did Iran ever mention such an offer at the time? What makes you think they'd wish to go back into combat with Iraq on Kuwait's behalf, when they had recently ended a bloody ten year war and were badly battered, particularly considering Kuwait had actively funded, supported, and sided with Saddam during that entire time? I'd think even if they volunteered for such a thing considering their recent history their motives would be suspect, and the outcome likely bad in the long run. The Islamic Republic of Iran occupying Kuwait would probably be worse than Saddam remaining in Kuwait. And Iran had just recently been kicked out after invading and occupying the Fao peninsula.

I can think of one Mrs P- our invasion of Iraq. We haven't exactly bowed to international pressure on this- have we?

In fact, it could be said, of Logo's example, that they are more resonsive than we have been- by a fair margin.

Remember- WE unilaterally attacked a country that did not threaten us in any credible way- and did an end run around any international law or body to do it.

Our actions have led to more deaths in Iraq than under Saddam at this point.

So, um, who's invasion was worse Mrs P- and who was more responsive to International pressure?

Theirs. As I mentioned, and linked to above, the UN has renewed a yearly mandate for Multinational forces in Iraq. Could you point to the Iraqi equivalent in Kuwait? The contrary. When did the UN make it clear that an invasion of Iraq "to enforce UNSCR" was prohibited? It didn't.

No resolutions against the action, no Acheson resolution (the equivalent of a UNSCR for members of the UNSC). No reason not to condemn our actions by that resolution if they wanted to condemn them. The UN didn't hesitate to provide that resolution to condemn France and the UK for the Suez canal (and the UK and France folded immediately) or the USSR for its attack on Afghanistan (it didn't fold so quickly, that would actually qualify as "ignoring international pressure").

By contrast, when did the UN (or "international pressure") make it clear that the invasion of Kuwait was prohibited, and Iraq's WMD were prohibited? Many, upon many, upon many times. Could you provide the concrete example you're referring to when you say Iraq was " more responsive than we have been- by a fair margin"?

Oh, I guess I did miss the part where Saddam has permanent veto power over the UN?

There has been massive international condemnation of the Iraqi invasion- you agree?

But, in the end, the UN can do nothing to stop US aggression in this area- agreed? Simply because the US can Veto any resolution against it.

I'm browsing through and not sure if you two have come to an agreement over GWS, so I thought I'd chime in and link this Wiki stub: chemical weapons.


Depleted uranium shells may have contributed to GWS, but other (mundane) factors are still being ruled out.

Anyway, there's no question SH had chemical/bio weapons. Why didn't he use them on our troops instead of watching his facilities get bombed? Perhaps he lacked adequate delivery systems?

As for why SH invaded Kuwait, an FBI agent, George Prio, "interrogated" him and gave 60 Minutes one of the most non-rational reasons I ever heard of for going to war:


Rational actors don't invade other countries because their women are insulted.

I disagree. There has been a lot of huffing and puffing unofficially. Official condemnation would not be a yearly welcome to police Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi government under UN mandate.



The US couldn't have vetoed an Acheson resolution, which has been used many times in the past to condemn aggression from UNSC members who could veto such actions. Yet it wasn't used in the case for Iraq. Why was that? I'd have to conclude that "international pressure" wasn't so great and the US did not simply "ignore it" because if "international pressure" wanted to make its wishes known, it had the means to make them known at the time. Yet it didn't. Why not?

Edited to add: Just saw Lesly's post above and followed the links to find this portion of the Riegel report on GWS. It's not as comprehensive as what I've seen before, but it's pretty good. Thanks, Lesly.

What would have happened had we not intervened/interfered in Kuwait after Saddam's invasion?
What would the Middle East look like today? Would it effect us or other nations and which ones?

I think that the most probable consequence of the US not intervening in Kuwait would have been that the surrounding ME nations would have intervened to prevent Iraqi imperialism. The best indicators of the threat level of a country would be the reactions of the nations in that region. Iran had no love for Iraq as we all know and neither did the Saudis. Turkey, Syria, Jordan, even Israel all had an interest in containing Iraqi power. If we did not intervene they most certainly would have if they felt threatened. Now while i think a ME coalition was likely, it is difficult to say if they would have seen Saddam as big as a threat as the US did. If Saddam stayed in power, then Iraq would be more rich from Kuwaiti oil reserves, but it would continue to be an authoritarian dictatorship meaning the resources would be wasted and the country would remain a third world nation.

One thing to consider is that the First Persian Gulf War was the first 'successful' post-Vietnam engagement for the US military. We shook off a lot of demons with how easily we were able to handle the Iraqi army. If we did not intervene then perhaps we would not have intervened in other areas such as Somalia, Haiti, or Yugoslavia.

You're right that the examples I cited aren't quite the same. However, there really aren't any examples (other than Saddam) where a dictator invaded/occupied another country in recent history that comes to mind. Yet, I think there are examples of dictators succumbing to international pressure. It is the rare case where pressure doesn't have an effect.

Still, I think the time scale for Saddam's withdrawal from Kuwait would have been within the decade of the 1990s. The reasons I believe this:

1. I think an Arab Coalition would have pressured Saddam with economic, cultural and military disincentives.
2. I believe Iran and Arab neighbors would have used the opportunity to fight Saddam by proxy by funding/arming an anti-Saddam insurgency. Moreover, it is likely the US would have done the same (by providing arms to the regional Arab countries to funnel to Kuwait).
3. UN sanctions would have still occurred (just as they had in this timeline) but would have been more effective as now Saddam was trying to hold Kuwait.
4. A Kurdish uprising would have forced Saddam to split his military between Kuwait and the northern Iraq. The US could have supported this uprising indirectly (though not sure how Turkey would have felt about that).
5. A NATO bombing campaign may or may not have been necessary. It could have been done via carrier as well as cruise missiles.



Iran wouldn't "offer" anything. They certainly haven't "offered" help for their backing of anti-US insurgents in Iraq. Iran would see this as an opportunity to weaken its mortal enemy AND increase its power in the region.

Mrs. Pigpen



Good research Mrs. P, Ive argued this one myself a couple times before and came to the same conclusion. Others that were present during that conversation between April Glaspie and Saddam have even been quoted saying that it was not perceived as a green light by the U.S. Thats a common misconception that is relatively easy to disprove for a number of reasons. I'm glad you pointed that out, now I don't have to bother

What would have happened had we not intervened/interfered in Kuwait after Saddam's invasion?

Thats hard to say, but its likely that Al Qaeda would have played an active role in protecting Saudi Arabia, as for Kuwait I'm not sure. What would have happened thereafter as a result is anybodies guess. I do believe Desert Storm to be one of the big motivators for Al Qaeda to attack us. Our stepping in to protect a mid eastern nation over Al Qaeda was taken as an insult, which Ive gathered from several sources.

I do believe Al Qaeda agression would have focused this way eventually, considering their philosophy is very anti-gouvernment, and anti-democracy. However, Ironically when people like Ron Paul or Rev. Wright argue that our foreign policies are partially responsible for terrorist agression toward us, there is some truth behind that. However context is important to me if one is to make such an argument. I believe that if we wouldn't have stepped in to protect Kuwait, It would have been an all out slaughter for them, therefore looking back I think it was good that we got involved.

Putting our own interest in the region aside for the sake of argument, like the stability of the mid eastern oil trade, I think whatever the motivators might have been for us that us stepping in to provide needed military aid to protect Kuwait cant be overlooked. Its not all about oil, and perhaps it wasn't solely about saving lives either, but I believe many people are quick to dismiss that as being an important motivator for us. To me the top two things that justify war, are national security, and protecting allies who in many cases cant do it alone.

So in retrospect if our foreign polices attract the attention of terrorist, this is not in my eyes a reason to let terrorist shape those foreign policies through intimidation. This is a point Ive been focused on getting across in recent debate, people say our foreign policies increase the risk that we will get attacked. In some cases this may very well be true, but its important we remain strong and don't base our foreign polices around the intimidation of terrorist.

What would the Middle East look like today? Would it effect us or other nations and which ones?

I don't know if it would have effected us or not, thats highly hypothetical, but it certainly would have devastated a number of nations in the Middle East. Saddam was crazy, ruthless, and had much power at the time, which is a nasty combination. He also had plans to attack multiple nations apart from Kuwait. He had plans to send jets full of nerve agents into Israel during Desert Storm for example, to add to the SCUD attacks he already launched at the time. He was advised not to proceed because the U.S. had set up surface-to-air Patriot missile defenses in Israel in anticipation of this attack and the Israeli Air force and military in general adopts many of our technologies.

The Saddam threat to the middle east in general has been continuously underestimated and disregarded by many, but by my research he was more than dangerous and carried out some pretty despicable acts during his rule.

As a side note, many people say the 2nd Gulf War was not justified because it was based on the potential for Saddam to do damage, rather than responding to an active threat. Personally I see it a little differently because the 2nd gulf war was based largely on crimes he had already committed (past tense). Desert Storm was a success in the sense that we protected Kuwait, but ultimately it was a stalemate and personally I don't believe that war ever ended. Large scale military forces may have pulled out of Iraq in the early 90's but out interest never left Iraq specifically because of the persisting Saddam threat. The 2nd Gulf war is simply the 2nd half of the same war in my opinion. This man can not be compared to the likes of Kim Jon Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, because Saddam not only shares a similar god complex that those two do, he had additionally proved he was more than all bark and no bite. That to me is what separates Iraq from many other nations of concern, where some people argue that we have no more right to be in Iraq than we have right to be in North Korea for example, but I do not see a parallel between such nations.

Anyway I'll leave it at that because thats another argument I suppose.