Going all the way to Baghdad in 1991. Necessarily a quagmire?

[Little_Nemo]

@Ibn_Warraq

Here’s an interview with Dick Cheney where he makes a very strong case as to why invading Iraq in 1991 would have been a terrible idea.

@BrainGlutton

Then why did he think it was a good idea in 2003?

A cynical possibility is that Cheney wasn’t positioned to make a profit off of an Iraq invasion in 1991. So he spent a decade reformating his corporate interests and then kicked off the war when he was better prepared for it.

[astorian]

George Bush the Elder believed first and foremost in stability. In his mind, ONE nation headed by ONE government (or even by ONE tyrant) was always preferable to chaos.

Remember, Bush wanted Yugoslavia and the USSR to stay together. He thought one USSR ruled by Gorbachev was much better than 20 republics, each with its own nukes.

Bush probably figured that one Iraq under Saddam was preferable to an Iraq in chaos or to three mini-nations (with, say, one ruled by an Iranian puppet, one ruled by one of Saddam’s old lieutenants, and one held by several different squabbling factions of Kurds).

[handsomeharry]

@Ryan_Liam

It’s amazing that all these scenarios of a 1991 occupation of Baghdad don’t take into account the Iranian leadership, and what it would think about the ‘Great Satan’ being on its front doorstep, and taking account of what happened 2003-11 Iran regularly supplied various Shia militias with weapons to attack US Coalition troops. So bearing that in mind, even if it happened in 1991, Iraq would of inflamed the Sunni Shia divide sooner which would again heighten those tensions across the region which we’re witnessing now.

I think those bear the hallmarks of a quagmire.

I don’t think that Iran would have had a big hissy fit about the US going in and occupying Iraq. See Iran-Iraq war. No love lost.

[Ryan_Liam]

@handsomeharry

I don’t think that Iran would have had a big hissy fit about the US going in and occupying Iraq. See Iran-Iraq war. No love lost.

So what, there was no love lost in 2003. Iran would of made any US attempt at controlling Iraq a quagmire, and why not? It’s the principle enemy of the Iranian government, which has removed a dictator they perceived as the main blocking point of Shia ascendancy in Iraq.

[NotfooledbyW]

@BrainGlutton

Just because we conquer Iraq in 1991 does not mean we have to occupy it. What happens if we just knock out Hussein’s government, arrest or kill him, and withdraw?

The majority Shiites take over and that gives Iran influence over what happens with Iraq’s oil. The Kurds take or try to take or take control of the oil in the North and get Kirkuk back. This drives NATO ally Turkey nuts. Sunnis would have been driven out of the Baghdad area as they were to a certain extent from 2004 through 2007. Al Qaeda is Sunni. Iraq would have become a dysfunctional state worse than under Baathist control where Al Qaeda would have gained a foothold just as they did in 2003.