A war after Iraq?

I remember right after Bush did his air craft carrier landing I and many others were sure that we'd soon be gearing up for a 3rd war. Was that at all possible?
 

celt

Banned
I think that if Iraq had gone as well as all the Neo con propaganda claimed it would.ie cheering crowds,the main square in Baghdad named after Bush junior etc.
They would have definitley gone after Syria next,I bet the Syrians were shitting themselves over it.
 
I remember right after Bush did his air craft carrier landing I and many others were sure that we'd soon be gearing up for a 3rd war. Was that at all possible?

Economically nope ... realistically of course, but started by the olde US is much more difficult, the army, AF and Navy were really scared at ammo and equipment expenditure ...
 
If the U.S. had a draft after 911 or agreed to double the size of the Army then maybe, but remember Syria was working with the U.S. back in 2002-2003 as was Libya. Hell, even Iran was quiet at that time.

In Bush's mind he was targeting countries in the region that were against the U.S. (and supporting those that were for us) and in 2001 all leaders in the region other then Iraq and Afghanistan were saying they were on our side. Iran though even at that time was in a sort of gray area, but no way were we going to invade. Its just too big and too rocky.
 
From Wiki:


  1. 22px-Flag_of_Iraq%2C_1991-2004.svg.png
    Iraq
  2. 22px-Flag_of_North_Korea.svg.png
    North Korea
  3. 22px-Flag_of_Iran.svg.png
    Iran


  1. 22px-Flag_of_Cuba.svg.png
    Cuba
  2. 22px-Flag_of_Libya.svg.png
    Libya
  3. 22px-Flag_of_Syria.svg.png
    Syria

Iraq was 'liberated', Iran too big and North Korea too unstable.

Syria and Libya were suddenly our friends, but not for long. Syria was planned to be next. I could see Bush doing an about-face on Libya if Syria is deemed successful. Bush could possibly go into Cuba to piss off Chavez. I wouldn't rule anything out except Iran and North Korea.
 
Syria and Libya were suddenly our friends, but not for long. Syria was planned to be next. I could see Bush doing an about-face on Libya if Syria is deemed successful. Bush could possibly go into Cuba to piss off Chavez. I wouldn't rule anything out except Iran and North Korea.

I think people forget that Bush had big domestic issues he wanted to change in his second term (things he had been talking about for years) Immigration Reform and Social Security Reform.

Both took huge amounts of political capital and he even neglected the WoT from a political standpoint for some time during his fight for these things which let his opposition frame the debate on the wars while he was busy fighting for Immigration Reform and Social Security Reform.

I also think you believe Bush was as ambitious foreign policy wise as many of the neocons in his WH which I certainly don't believe he was.
 
The problem that Bush had is that Saddam Hussein lived too long.

I think the original plan was to decapitate the Iraqi command structure, and then rush through mock elections which would put an American backed puppet in charge. Chalabi was the obvious favourite, but there were a few others.

It appears that one of the things that made the invasion so easy was massive bribes to many of Saddam's generals, so in essence, the Army was already bought and paid for.

The Iraqi military was to be left intact, and provided it was properly docile and obedient, this would allow for a rapid drawdown of troops.

Those troops would have been marching into Syria.

The problem was that Saddam Hussein and his command structure did not die on schedule. Instead, Saddam Hussein remained at large for nine months. His sons remained at large for four months. Much of his key command structure, particularly his intelligence apparatus remained at large with potential for re-establishing control of Iraqi military and intelligence.

This was unacceptable. So of course, America had to maintain the bulk of its available troops in occupation. Eventually, the security issues were seen as so problematic that the Iraqi army and intelligence service were dissolved entirely, and the decision was made to redo it from the start.

Of course, if you're occupying Iraq, long term, then there's no spare army to send into Syria. Those lucky Baathists.

Not that this kept the Bush administration from starting a few more wars.

There was the Ethiopian invasion and occupation of Somalia, paid for with US dollars, supported by US warships and aircraft, which conducted their own activities along the way. That invasion and occupation ended the minute that the Bush administration's cheques stopped coming.

And then there's the famous Israeli-Lebanese War, bankrolled, cheered on, and diplomatically supported by the Bush administration.
 
They may have tried heading into Georgia. The Bush administration did consider bombing the Roki tunnel to keep the Russians for sending more troops in, and Bush did send USAF transports to ferry Georgian troops from Iraq to Georgia. Further, most of the Senate and House would have favored such a war (or at least opposed Russia), to say nothing of the foreign policy establishment. However, this would likely have led to WWIII, WWIV, or WWV depending on who you talk to. Further it took place in 2008, which would be long after the invasion of Iraq.
 
They may have tried heading into Georgia. The Bush administration did consider bombing the Roki tunnel to keep the Russians for sending more troops in, and Bush did send USAF transports to ferry Georgian troops from Iraq to Georgia. Further, most of the Senate and House would have favored such a war (or at least opposed Russia), to say nothing of the foreign policy establishment. However, this would likely have led to WWIII, WWIV, or WWV depending on who you talk to. Further it took place in 2008, which would be long after the invasion of Iraq.

I don't like Bush, but do you honestly believe he'd be willing to go to war with Russia over Georgia of all places.
 
Top