Iraq kills ex-President Bush in 1993

[James G]

In 1993, Saddam tried to assassinate former President Bush when he was in Kuwait.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_cruise_missile_strikes_on_Iraq
The attempt was stopped by the Kuwaitis and Clinton fired cruise missiles at Iraq.

What if the plan went off though? How does the US react?
Would Clinton invade Iraq all to avenge the death of his defeated election opponent?

[lordroel]

Mar 17, 2018 14:14:22 GMT James G said:

In 1993, Saddam tried to assassinate former President Bush when he was in Kuwait.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_cruise_missile_strikes_on_Iraq
The attempt was stopped by the Kuwaitis and Clinton fired cruise missiles at Iraq.

What if the plan went off though? How does the US react?
Would Clinton invade Iraq all to avenge the death of his defeated election opponent?

It would be War.

[James G]

Mar 17, 2018 14:26:28 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 17, 2018 14:14:22 GMT James G said:

In 1993, Saddam tried to assassinate former President Bush when he was in Kuwait.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_cruise_missile_strikes_on_Iraq
The attempt was stopped by the Kuwaitis and Clinton fired cruise missiles at Iraq.

What if the plan went off though? How does the US react?
Would Clinton invade Iraq all to avenge the death of his defeated election opponent?

It would be War.

That's what I was thinking. In what manner it would go would be interesting though.
US tanks in Baghdad bringing down statues of Saddam? Or a big air campaign alone?

[lordroel]

Mar 17, 2018 14:56:19 GMT James G said:

Mar 17, 2018 14:26:28 GMT lordroel said:

It would be War.

That's what I was thinking. In what manner it would go would be interesting though.
US tanks in Baghdad bringing down statues of Saddam? Or a big air campaign alone?

But what about this, according to wiki: In October, 1993, New Yorker investigative journalist Seymour Hersh assailed the U.S. government’s case as "seriously flawed', noting that seven bomb experts had told him that the devices were mass-produced and probably not even manufactured in Iraq.

So what happens when it is latter discovered the Iraqis where not behind the death of the former president but a terrorist organization was.

[James G]

Mar 17, 2018 14:58:50 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 17, 2018 14:56:19 GMT James G said:

That's what I was thinking. In what manner it would go would be interesting though.
US tanks in Baghdad bringing down statues of Saddam? Or a big air campaign alone?

But what about this, according to wiki: In October, 1993, New Yorker investigative journalist Seymour Hersh assailed the U.S. government’s case as "seriously flawed', noting that seven bomb experts had told him that the devices were mass-produced and probably not even manufactured in Iraq.

So what happens when it is latter discovered the Iraqis where not behind the death of the former president but a terrorist organization was.

Yeah, that would put the cat among the pigeons! A bit like the post OTL Iraq War with no WMDs.

[lordroel]

Mar 17, 2018 14:59:56 GMT James G said:

Yeah, that would put the cat among the pigeons! A bit like the post OTL Iraq War with no WMDs.

That was the same thing i was thinking.

[mullauna]

How will the nutter left and pacofists react to Clinton invading Iraq rather than the loathed George Bush?

[stevep]

Mar 19, 2018 1:19:01 GMT mullauna said:

How will the nutter left and pacofists react to Clinton invading Iraq rather than the loathed George Bush?

  Pretty much the same way as OTL.  Nutters and pacifists are pretty much as impenetrability to common sense as their equivalents on the right and devoid of reason.  Plus in this case there would actually be a valid political reason fro invading, rather than finishing off the job George junior didn't complete.  It will still save a lot of civilian lives by getting rid of a murderous regime - presuming you don't blame the west for what local nutters do afterwards.  Which if there is more sensible western leadership you might just avoid although I fear its still going to be difficult.  From the British point of view we will hopefully avoid the mess of the phony dossier, although that could possibly leave Blair with a better reputation than he deserves.  [But then Thatcher, Major and Cameron all escaped their just rewards so I suppose there's a kind of shared [in]justice there.

[spanishspy]

The tanks would roll into Basra and Mosul and Baghdad and Irbil. The US takes the gloves off and bombs the living hell out of Iraq. The occupation is going to be a mess, though. Maybe we'd see an independence Kurdistan, and maybe a state for the Marsh Arabs.

[lordroel]

Mar 20, 2018 4:39:22 GMT spanishspy said:

The tanks would roll into Basra and Mosul and Baghdad and Irbil. The US takes the gloves off and bombs the living hell out of Iraq. The occupation is going to be a mess, though. Maybe we'd see an independence Kurdistan, and maybe a state for the Marsh Arabs.

And maybe a little less problem as we have seen the past few years.

[spanishspy]

Mar 20, 2018 4:40:28 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 20, 2018 4:39:22 GMT spanishspy said:

The tanks would roll into Basra and Mosul and Baghdad and Irbil. The US takes the gloves off and bombs the living hell out of Iraq. The occupation is going to be a mess, though. Maybe we'd see an independence Kurdistan, and maybe a state for the Marsh Arabs.

And maybe a little less problem as we have seen the past few years.

Maybe, or maybe it just drags the problems earlier. Iran won't have many kind things to say about this. 

[lordroel]

Mar 20, 2018 4:43:21 GMT spanishspy said:

Mar 20, 2018 4:40:28 GMT lordroel said:

And maybe a little less problem as we have seen the past few years.

Maybe, or maybe it just drags the problems earlier. Iran won't have many kind things to say about this. 

And in Syria a father is holding power, so i doubt there will be problem there.

[spanishspy]

Mar 20, 2018 4:44:25 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 20, 2018 4:43:21 GMT spanishspy said:

Maybe, or maybe it just drags the problems earlier. Iran won't have many kind things to say about this. 

And in Syria a father is holding power, so i doubt there will be problem there.

Maybe something among the Kurds but I think stability will be maintained.

[lordroel]

Mar 20, 2018 4:58:55 GMT spanishspy said:

Mar 20, 2018 4:44:25 GMT lordroel said:

And in Syria a father is holding power, so i doubt there will be problem there.

Maybe something among the Kurds but I think stability will be maintained.

That will not make the Turks happy.

[stevep]

Mar 20, 2018 5:38:43 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 20, 2018 4:58:55 GMT spanishspy said:

Maybe something among the Kurds but I think stability will be maintained.

That will not make the Turks happy.

  The Turks won't be happy while there is a single person anywhere in the region that identifies themselves as Kurdish.  However an independent or even self governing Kurdish state in N Iraq will also be deeply unpopular with both Syria and Iran so in such a situation expect a lot of problems from them supporting terrorists and unrest.

  One thought.  If the US especially gets involved in Iraq in 93 will it make any difference to it behaviour with regards to Afghanistan when the Russians withdraw, if the Taliban take over there, and especially if there's an attempt, successful or not, on the Twin Towers and the Taliban seek to protect bin Ladan?  Might they wish to avoid getting entangled there or possibly manage things better.  Although of course, if this set of event still happens ~8 years later a lot of other things could change.