No war in Iraq.
- Thread starter lounge60
- Start date
His approval rating would be significantly higher. No other single policy has done as much to ruin both his personal approval and our national reputation. He would probably have a much clearer victory over Kerry in 2004, as Iraq would no longer be a campaign issue.
There would be a much greater likelihood of catching/killing Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, as more money/force could be routed toward Afghanistan. (The trade-off: no al-Zarqawi).
Domestic policy would continue its conservative-to-moderate progression, and the Democratic takeover of the House and Senate would not take place in the '06 election.
However, it's unlikely that Bush would propose any kind of sweeping legislative programs in his second term. Instead, the major challenge would be the national recovery from hurricanes Katrina and Rita, with a wider eye being turned to improving the national infrastructure and disaster preparation/recovery.
His legacy would be as the "Recovery President," helping guide the nation through disasters manmade (9/11) and natural ('canes). He would not be considered a "great" president by a long stretch, but more dynamic than, say, Ford or Carter.
There would be a much greater likelihood of catching/killing Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, as more money/force could be routed toward Afghanistan. (The trade-off: no al-Zarqawi).
Domestic policy would continue its conservative-to-moderate progression, and the Democratic takeover of the House and Senate would not take place in the '06 election.
However, it's unlikely that Bush would propose any kind of sweeping legislative programs in his second term. Instead, the major challenge would be the national recovery from hurricanes Katrina and Rita, with a wider eye being turned to improving the national infrastructure and disaster preparation/recovery.
His legacy would be as the "Recovery President," helping guide the nation through disasters manmade (9/11) and natural ('canes). He would not be considered a "great" president by a long stretch, but more dynamic than, say, Ford or Carter.
There would need to be a reason why he wouldn't. Whether an alternative, or lack of causus belli, something different would be necessary. From what I recall from a article on what went on after 9-11, the Bush administration wanted to bring opposing nations "in line" with American interests. The three "big" nations that came up were Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea.
Iran was bypassed because it was hoped that a reformer would win the upcoming elections, leading to better US-Iran relations.
N. Korea was bypassed because China was too close, and US-China relations were more important than any N. Korean annoyance.
Iraq was an attractive target because it would be easily beaten, was internationally isolated, and was refusing to comply with nuclear inspectors.
To not invade Iraq, either another target needed to be chosen for some reason, Iraq stand down for nuclear inspectors, or a press leak that Bush was planning regime change in Iraq (which would be denied and forgotten, but unable to procede).
Iran was bypassed because it was hoped that a reformer would win the upcoming elections, leading to better US-Iran relations.
N. Korea was bypassed because China was too close, and US-China relations were more important than any N. Korean annoyance.
Iraq was an attractive target because it would be easily beaten, was internationally isolated, and was refusing to comply with nuclear inspectors.
To not invade Iraq, either another target needed to be chosen for some reason, Iraq stand down for nuclear inspectors, or a press leak that Bush was planning regime change in Iraq (which would be denied and forgotten, but unable to procede).
ninebucks
Banned
Any invasion of Iran would be truly catostrophic. The United States simply would not be able to control the huge, culturally united Iran.
And @OP, without Saddam being toppled, it is likely that he would become another Kim Jong-il, a dangerous autocrat with an unchecked weapons scheme...
Well, assuming a POD after the twentieth of January 2001, Iraq today would be stable today in the way that any police state is stable. The U.S. would have one more enemy in the world. An interminable no-fly zone would be patrolled at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. Democracy west of India and south of Turkey is unheard of sans Israel. The closest Arab model of a "democracy" will remain Egypt, which is more of a one-party state than a democracy. Kurds and Shiites continue to face repression along with other domestic enemies of Saddam Hussein. Iran continues to expand its nuclear development program.
There are issues here that remain uncertain, however. I say this because it could be possible that Hussein will want atleast the perception of an arms race with Iran, but if Iraq still has (or seems like it might have) WMD, then it may have been invaded anyway.
There are issues here that remain uncertain, however. I say this because it could be possible that Hussein will want atleast the perception of an arms race with Iran, but if Iraq still has (or seems like it might have) WMD, then it may have been invaded anyway.
Leo Caesius
Banned
I have a feeling that Zarqawi will probably be caught in his native Jordan trying to bump off the Hashemites. He'll die virtually unknown outside of that country.
So, quite stable, particularly for the region.
And quite a few more allies, who were completely alienated in OTL.
As opposed to, say, a whole frigging country.
How is this different from OTL?
Unless, of course, you consider the Islamic Republic of Iraq, where the Interior Ministry works hand in hand with Shiah death squads, and the press enjoy a degree of freedom usually found only in countries like the People's Republic of China and Uzbekistan, to be a "democracy."Well, as it happens, there was this one country, it's called Lebanon, that successfully rid itself of its Syrian occupiers and looked to become a model for the region until it was sold up the river by the Bush administration and blown to smithereens by the Israelis.
Whereas nobody in Iraq is oppressed today at all. Particularly not women and religious minorities such as Christians and Mandaeans.
My question, once again, is how does this differ from OTL? Have they stopped expanding their nuclear development program and, if so, why wasn't I informed?
Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?
Honestly, I had forgotten about him. That seems plausible.
Indeed.
I have yet to see who was completely alienated IOTL
A whole country once, or TWO no-fly zones indefinitely? The latter is certainly cheaper in the short term.
The difference IOTL is that the change of authority in Iraq could lead eventually to positive change throughout the region.How is this different from OTL?
That's funny. It seems to me that its democratic revolution (and throwing out of the Syrian army) occurred AFTER the invasion of Iraq IOTL
Where have I said otherwise?
If the U.S. is any kind of example, democracy takes time. As does the struggle for Liberty
It doesn't. The difference here is that there is even less of a U.S. presence in the region, and one more brutal, antiamerican autocracy.
Same as it is in your's, I assure you.
Leo Caesius
Banned
Are you implying that it was a result of the invasion? Hurricane Katrina also occurred AFTER the invasion of Iraq. Can we attribute that to the invasion as well?That's funny. It seems to me that its democratic revolution (and throwing out of the Syrian army) occurred AFTER the invasion of Iraq IOTL
I realize that the Bush administration and its supporters like to take credit for a lot of things completely outside of their control, but the Syrians didn't begin withdrawing the day after the invasion. The occupation was already much reduced by 2003, all of the militias (save Hezbollah) had been disarmed, and Lebanon was well on the path to independence. At most you could claim that this process was hastened to its near inevitable conclusion. Even so, that requires a lot of special pleading.
As for the argument that Iraq somehow has a greater potential to organically develop into a stable, progressive democracy today than it did four years ago, well, if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle.
Leo Caesius
Banned
I couldn't let this pass by. You're ignoring that this "brutal, anti-American autocracy" actually happened to be run by Iran's number one enemy. If anything, Iraq was a CHECK upon Iranian ambitions in the region, a check which was removed by the Bush administration and replaced by a new regime which was not merely friendly to Iran but actually run by a group of Shiite politicians of whom many had spent most of their adult lives in Iran and today espouse much the same ideology as that which governs Iran, at the expense of occupying many of its own troops and spending billions and billions of dollars of cash. To try to paint this as anything but a huge coup for the Islamic Republic of Iran would be an exercise in futility.
Man cannot control forces of nature. As such, of course Katrina wou;ld have still happened.Are you implying that it was a result of the invasion? Hurricane Katrina also occurred AFTER the invasion of Iraq. Can we attribute that to the invasion as well?
Yes, I was implying that the invasion hastened events in Lebanon.
As any politician would
What I disagree with here was that the Syrian withdrawal was anything close to inevitable.
Under Saddam Hussein, the trappings of democracy would not have emerged. Whereas today, with all of the trouble that Iraq has had, its people have now experienced several key aspects of democracy previously unavailable to them.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Yes, Saddam Hussein had a long period of bad relations with Iran, from the war in the 1980's to the present. While the two nations could be rivals of sorts, beyond each other, they shared common enemies. Just as it is futile to ignore Iran's ties to some current Iraqi powerbrokers, it is equally as futile to dismiss any assertion that Iraq and Iran may actually share some common goals.
Leo Caesius
Banned
And, having been there myself before the invasion, I have to disagree with you. The occupation wasn't going to go on forever, and the withdrawal had already begun, as I've noted above.
I disagree, because the people actually governing Iraq today had already experienced these "aspects of democracy" ... while they were living in Iran. And, to a certain extent, they are remaking Iraq in Iran's image, but with militias instead of mullahs calling the shots.
Furthermore, Iraq did have the rudiments of a civil society before the Coalition appeared on the scene, but it was largely dismantled by the war and the Coalition could only get so far in rebuilding it before the civil war began. At the moment, Iraq is experiencing an enormous brain drain and refugees are pouring out of the country in numbers completely unprecedented even in Saddam's worst days. The end result is a net loss. This is undeniable.
Last edited:
Leo Caesius
Banned
Nobody is dismissing that they might have shared some goals. As a matter of fact, I'm sure they shared some common goals with other states in the region and even with the US as well. What I am dismissing is the ridiculous assumption that they were actually inclined to collaborate with one another on some sinister plot against the US and that either was in any position to actually carry out such a hypothetical plot, particularly Iraq.
And to characterize Iran and Iraq as "rivals of a sort" and the Iran-Iraq War as "bad relations" has to be the most jaw-droppingly ludicrous understatement I've seen in a long, long while.
Leo Caesius
Banned
I'm sorry, I'm sorry... we've been down this road, many times before, but it's true that we haven't examined the ankle angle.
Perhaps you would have joined the circus and become a world-famous trapeze artist?
Well, when aliens, having seen Independence Day, come to wipe us out for our sins against celluloid in 2009, YOU would have been the one who made the crucial run to the self-destruct button onboard the mothership. Now, though, we can receive the punishment we so richly deserve, without you being all heroic.
I'm not saying it's good that your ankle got screwed up, but we've got to weigh that against Battlefield Earth.
Glen
Moderator
Very nice analysis, Dean, and one I agree with. Hussein made himself vulnerable by his actions in the 1990s, not to mention making a personal enemy of George Bush by plotting to assassinate his father.
I agree. I think however, the only one that is likely would be the option that Saddam Hussein relents and throws open the doors to inspectors. This could only happen if somehow he became convinced that the US would invade if he didn't. In interviews, Hussein said up to the very moment, he did not believe that the US would. Don't know quite how to pull that off, but its plausible at least that it could happen.
Now then, if there were no Iraq War, then I think things would go better for the Bush Admininstration, though still not great.
We'd have more forces in Afghanistan, but not necessarily that many more given our current situation there. More money for rebuilding in Afghanistan, but not much more given the fact that we won't feel as much responsibility for its reconstruction.
Katrina will be the first real fiasco for the Bush Administration, the one that begins to bring the competance question into play. The series of scandals in the Congress in 2006 will not help matters.
The Democrats will make gains in 2006 still ITTL, but they won't be as big as OTL. I think the House may still flip to the Democrats, with much credit due to Rahm Emmanuel's excellent candidate recruitment strategy. There will be a narrowing in the Senate, but the Republicans will remain in control there, ironically due to more moderate Republicans retaining their seats.
Glen
Moderator
Actually, one can make a counter-argument that such cultural unity (not certain its as homogenous as you think, but certainly more so than Iraq) would allow for more stability in a post Islamic state.
Throw the Ayatollahs out of office, decimate the Revolutionary Guard, and then turn the nation over to the reformers and get out of Dodge. Unlike in Iraq, there is a clear and (relatively) moderate faction to turn over control to without the risk of civil war, and there is even a tradition of democracy in the nation, though hobbled by the religious wing of the government.
I wouldn't want to have to try and 'control' Iran, but you could certainly degrade their arms program and even have a fighting chance of leaving a moderate democracy in power.
Of course, there is the significant downside that the moderates might be considered less legitimate due to being put in power initially by invaders. It really might not work. But odds are better than Iraq, I'd guess.
Unchecked weapons scheme, yes, but fairly far behind from what we can glean post invasion.