Alternate Targets of a U.S. Invasion in 2003?

CaliGuy

Banned
Out of curiosity--which country/countries could the U.S. have invaded in place of Iraq in 2003 had Bush Jr. (purely hypothetically) wanted to invade some other country?

Indeed, for which other countries would have there been the necessary political will in the U.S. to support a U.S. invasion of these countries in 2003?

Any thoughts on this?
 
There really isn't anyone else. Iran would be too costly, North Korea would be too costly and would open up a can of worms surrounding reconstruction that the South Koreans would hate, and the Chinese would object. Maybe Sudan, between Darfur and their support of al Qaeda, but Iraq was a perfect candidate given its history, position, and military weakness after the Gulf War plus a decade of sanctions.

I should add that it's really hard for the United States to just completely invade a country without significant political fallout. Iraq was the second most acceptable target in the world for regime change, and it was still extraordinarily contentious, as we all know.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
There really isn't anyone else. Iran would be too costly,

Would Iran genuinely be too costly, though?

North Korea would be too costly and would open up a can of worms surrounding reconstruction that the South Koreans would hate,

Question--did North Korea already have nuclear weapons in 2003?

and the Chinese would object.

Didn't China also object to the Iraq War, though?


Sudan, between Darfur and their support of al Qaeda,

So, if Sudan avoids kicking out al-Qaeda in the 1990s, it could be a target? Or would Darfue be enough for this?

but Iraq was a perfect candidate given its history, position, and military weakness after the Gulf War plus a decade of sanctions.

OK.

Also, though, what about Syria?

I should add that it's really hard for the United States to just completely invade a country without significant political fallout.

It was able to do this in Afghanistan, no?

Iraq was the second most acceptable target in the world for regime change,

Was Afghanistan the first most acceptable target?

and it was still extraordinarily contentious, as we all know.

Wasn't that at least in part because Bush Jr. didn't let the U.N. inspectors finish their work (in Iraq) in 2003 before he invaded Iraq, though?
 
Would Iran genuinely be too costly, though?

Yep. Unlike Iraq, they could quite directly threaten the world's oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz. Economic crash that probably wouldn't be alleviated before Election Day 2004, forget it. Also, mountainous and a much stronger military than Iraq's.

Question--did North Korea already have nuclear weapons in 2003?

No, but they also had a much larger military than Iraq's, however deteriorated.

Didn't China also object to the Iraq War, though?

Yes, but this would be much worse since it's on their doorstep and threatening their interests. And we remember all too well what happened last time we crossed the 49th without their permission.

So, if Sudan avoids kicking out al-Qaeda in the 1990s, it could be a target? Or would Darfue be enough for this?

If Bin Laden was in Sudan in 2001, then we'd have invaded Sudan to get him, yes. Darfur would not be enough by itself, though.

OK.

Also, though, what about Syria?

Too many political issues with their neighbors, not enough motivation.

It was able to do this in Afghanistan, no?

Yes, the number one most acceptable target both because of 9/11 and their lawless, genocidal Taliban government.

Wasn't that at least in part because Bush Jr. didn't let the U.N. inspectors finish their work in 2003 before he invaded Iraq, though?

Partly that, but that was a problem because the nuclear program was part of our pretext to invade. We need something (or things, since we also conflated them with Bin Laden) similarly compelling to invade anywhere else.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Would Iran genuinely be too costly, though?
Quite bluntly, yes. Even ignoring the Oil, it had an actual army that was trained and equipped for war, the terrain was unfavourable to invaders, and it was on Russia's doorstep.
Question--did North Korea already have nuclear weapons in 2003?
No.

First test three years later, though, so there was undoubtedly an active program.
Didn't China also object to the Iraq War, though?
Yes.
So, if Sudan avoids kicking out al-Qaeda in the 1990s, it could be a target? Or would Darfue be enough for this?
Sudan was a country seen on the table for international intervention in the late 90's/early 00's. In Britain (at least), it would have seemed to be the logical follow-up to the interventions in Kosovo and Sierra Leone. In America I understand there was a considerable liberal campaign to do something. However, without al-Qaeda, it was unlikely you'd see Kosovo or Sierra Leone 2.0.
OK.

Also, though, what about Syria?
Largely the same issues as Iran, now with the added dimension of Russian backing.
It was able to do this in Afghanistan, no?
Afghanistan's backlash came later when it became a protracted war with no end in sight.
Was Afghanistan the first most acceptable target?
Yes.
Wasn't that at least in part because Bush Jr. didn't let the U.N. inspectors finish their work in 2003 before he invaded Iraq, though?
Partially, but also because, to borrow a phrase from Michael Howard, the dossier was 'sexed up'.
 

nbcman

Donor
What about Yemen? There were multiple terrorist attacks in late 2002 in addition to the Predator strike that killed an al-Qaeda leader who supposedly planned the attack on the USS Cole. If the Yemeni government didn't cooperate with the US, maybe the US decides to invade.
 
How to get the U.S. to attack Saudi Arabia, I wonder. They should've been the one to get attacked first, since Al Qaeda was heavily supported by Saudis.
 
How to get the U.S. to attack Saudi Arabia, I wonder. They should've been the one to get attacked first, since Al Qaeda was heavily supported by Saudis.

By Saudis that opposed the Saudi government. And American forces in the Kingdom for the Gulf War was what got us into this mess, so it's just compounding the issue.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Yep. Unlike Iraq, they could quite directly threaten the world's oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz.

Can't the U.S. bomb the hell out of their navy for doing this, though?

Economic crash that probably wouldn't be alleviated before Election Day 2004, forget it. Also, mountainous and a much stronger military than Iraq's.

Fair points about the mountains. However, it is also worth noting that Iran's military couldn't even defeat Iraq's military back in the 1980s!

No, but they also had a much larger military than Iraq's, however deteriorated.

OK; also, though, out of curiosity--do you have the exact numbers for each of their militaries?

Yes, but this would be much worse since it's on their doorstep and threatening their interests. And we remember all too well what happened last time we crossed the 49th without their permission.

Would China actually have the nerve and willpower to once again militarily intervene in Korea in 2003, though? After all, 1950 China was much more isolated from the world than 2003 China was!

If Bin Laden was in Sudan in 2001, then we'd have invaded Sudan to get him, yes. Darfur would not be enough by itself, though.

OK. Also, though, out of curiosity--how exactly would such a U.S. invasion and regime-change have turned out?

Too many political issues with their neighbors, not enough motivation.

Political issues such as its tensions with Israel?

Yes, the number one most acceptable target both because of 9/11 and their lawless, genocidal Taliban government.

I thought that no one other than feminists actually cared about the Taliban's atrocities before 9/11, though?

Partly that, but that was a problem because the nuclear program was part of our pretext to invade. We need something (or things, since we also conflated them with Bin Laden) similarly compelling to invade anywhere else.

OK.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
What about Yemen? There were multiple terrorist attacks in late 2002 in addition to the Predator strike that killed an al-Qaeda leader who supposedly planned the attack on the USS Cole. If the Yemeni government didn't cooperate with the US, maybe the US decides to invade.
Why would the Yemeni government--a U.S. ally--refuse to cooperate with the U.S., though?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Quite bluntly, yes. Even ignoring the Oil, it had an actual army that was trained and equipped for war, the terrain was unfavourable to invaders, and it was on Russia's doorstep.

Iran's military wasn't that strong, though; after all, it failed to defeat Iraq back in the 1980s!

No.

First test three years later, though, so there was undoubtedly an active program.

OK.

Yes.

Sudan was a country seen on the table for international intervention in the late 90's/early 00's. In Britain (at least), it would have seemed to be the logical follow-up to the interventions in Kosovo and Sierra Leone. In America I understand there was a considerable liberal campaign to do something. However, without al-Qaeda, it was unlikely you'd see Kosovo or Sierra Leone 2.0.

OK. Also, though, what exactly do you think that Al Gore would have done in regards to Sudan had he been U.S. President in 2001-2005/2009 and avoided invading Iraq?

Largely the same issues as Iran, now with the added dimension of Russian backing.

Afghanistan's backlash came later when it became a protracted war with no end in sight.

Yes.

Partially, but also because, to borrow a phrase from Michael Howard, the dossier was 'sexed up'.

OK; understood about all of this.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Iran's military wasn't that strong, though; after all, it failed to defeat Iraq back in the 1980s!
If I have to explain what the issue with this logic is, then it might not be worth explaining.

Iraq's military wasn't strong enough to withstand a coalition of nations, but it'd of put up more of a fight than the Iraqi Army and would have greatly complicated things for a coalition.

OK. Also, though, what exactly do you think that Al Gore would have done in regards to Sudan had he been U.S. President in 2001-2005/2009 and avoided invading Iraq?
Honestly? Fuck and all.

And to be frank it's more than likely he'd of eventually gone into Iraq for one reason or another, given how he voiced support for intervention, but simply not in the way Bush went about it. He believed that intervention was inevitable and justifiable, and throughout 2002 reiterated this point, however just opposed the way that Bush was doing it. The myth that Gore wouldn't have gone in is just that- a myth that was rooted in his opposition to the circumstances of OTL. Otherwise, he was prepared to go "When the time is right".
 

nbcman

Donor
Why would the Yemeni government--a U.S. ally--refuse to cooperate with the U.S., though?
Maybe the Yemeni government decided to cooperate but not to allow US forces and drones to operate in Yemeni borders. The US government then decides that is not good enough and invades parts of Yemen that the al-Qaeda insurgents hold without the Yemeni government's permission.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
If I have to explain what the issue with this logic is, then it might not be worth explaining.

Iraq's military wasn't strong enough to withstand a coalition of nations, but it'd of put up more of a fight than the Iraqi Army and would have greatly complicated things for a coalition.

Sure, Iran's military would pose more of a fight for the U.S. than the Iraqi military did in our TL; however, I am still not convinced that the U.S. would be unable to effectively take care of them.

Honestly? Fuck and all.

Huh?

And to be frank it's more than likely he'd of eventually gone into Iraq for one reason or another, given how he voiced support for intervention, but simply not in the way Bush went about it. He believed that intervention was inevitable and justifiable, however opposed the way that Bush went around it. The myth that Gore wouldn't have gone in is just that- a myth that was rooted in his opposition to the circumstances of OTL. Otherwise, he was prepared to go "When the time is right".

Would the situation in Afghanistan have been sufficiently stable by the mid-2000s for Al Gore to invade Iraq even if he would have actually wanted to do this, though?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Maybe the Yemeni government decided to cooperate but not to allow US forces and drones to operate in Yemeni borders. The US government then decides that is not good enough and invades parts of Yemen that the al-Qaeda insurgents hold without the Yemeni government's permission.
That might work if the tensions become very high beforehand.
 
Can't the U.S. bomb the hell out of their navy for doing this, though?

Yes, but the damage would already be done, and they could probably continue asymmetric attacks with smaller boats for a while. Even short-term economic pain isn't something the Bush Administration would be too willing to abide, since it'd interfere with their tax cut agenda.

Fair points about the mountains. However, it is also worth noting that Iran's military couldn't even defeat Iraq's military back in the 1980s!

We had to tilt the scale pretty heavily to keep them from winning, and that was a war on their frontiers (and also the Iraqi army was much, much stronger then than in 1991 or 2003), but an occupation of the country would be much harder.

OK; also, though, out of curiosity--do you have the exact numbers for each of their militaries?

The Iraqis fielded just shy of 400K in 2003. North Korea is more complicated since they haven't used their army in decades and their numbers are probably unreliable, but on paper they've got about 2 million active and reserves. And as much as on paper may be inflated, the whole society is designed for mass mobilization, so I could imagine them fielding even more troops than that if they could supply them, which they admittedly probably couldn't.

Would China actually have the nerve and willpower to once again militarily intervene in Korea in 2003, though? After all, 1950 China was much more isolated from the world than 2003 China was!

They'd be unlikely to shoot at us, but they'd for sure send troops in to stop the inevitable refugee crisis that would ensue once Pyongyang collapsed. And they'd have so many other ways than brute force to make the whole affair unpleasant for us that it's really not worth contemplating regime change in North Korea without them. The South Koreans know this and would also insist that we have their approval first, of course.

OK. Also, though, out of curiosity--how exactly would such a U.S. invasion and regime-change have turned out?

I'm really not sure. A partition plus oil sharing arrangements ideally, but it depends on who'd be likely to win elections that got instituted, and I don't know nearly enough about Sudanese politics to say. That in turn would depend on if there was a partition or not, or whether political parties would be delineated by ethnicity and pit Arabs against blacks, and this could get very complicated, of course.

Political issues such as its tensions with Israel?

More like its alliances with Iran and Russia, plus the effects that it falling into disorder would have on Turkey and Lebanon.

I thought that no one other than feminists actually cared about the Taliban's atrocities before 9/11, though?

That's probably true, but it's enough to mean that nobody really sympathized with them. Most other governments, even most dictatorships, would still get some defenders as victims of American aggression if we up and attacked them.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Yes, but the damage would already be done, and they could probably continue asymmetric attacks with smaller boats for a while. Even short-term economic pain isn't something the Bush Administration would be too willing to abide, since it'd interfere with their tax cut agenda.



We had to tilt the scale pretty heavily to keep them from winning, and that was a war on their frontiers (and also the Iraqi army was much, much stronger then than in 1991 or 2003), but an occupation of the country would be much harder.



The Iraqis fielded just shy of 400K in 2003. North Korea is more complicated since they haven't used their army in decades and their numbers are probably unreliable, but on paper they've got about 2 million active and reserves. And as much as on paper may be inflated, the whole society is designed for mass mobilization, so I could imagine them fielding even more troops than that if they could supply them, which they admittedly probably couldn't.



They'd be unlikely to shoot at us, but they'd for sure send troops in to stop the inevitable refugee crisis that would ensue once Pyongyang collapsed. And they'd have so many other ways than brute force to make the whole affair unpleasant for us that it's really not worth contemplating regime change in North Korea without them. The South Koreans know this and would also insist that we have their approval first, of course.



I'm really not sure. A partition plus oil sharing arrangements ideally, but it depends on who'd be likely to win elections that got instituted, and I don't know nearly enough about Sudanese politics to say. That in turn would depend on if there was a partition or not, or whether political parties would be delineated by ethnicity and pit Arabs against blacks, and this could get very complicated, of course.



More like its alliances with Iran and Russia, plus the effects that it falling into disorder would have on Turkey and Lebanon.



That's probably true, but it's enough to mean that nobody really sympathized with them. Most other governments, even most dictatorships, would still get some defenders as victims of American aggression if we up and attacked them.
Very good points in all of your responses here! :)
 
Honestly? Fuck and all.

And to be frank it's more than likely he'd of eventually gone into Iraq for one reason or another, given how he voiced support for intervention, but simply not in the way Bush went about it. He believed that intervention was inevitable and justifiable, and throughout 2002 reiterated this point, however just opposed the way that Bush was doing it. The myth that Gore wouldn't have gone in is just that- a myth that was rooted in his opposition to the circumstances of OTL. Otherwise, he was prepared to go "When the time is right".

This. Hillary Clinton wasn't an outlier; pretty much everybody tied to the Clinton Administration wanted a piece of Saddam by 2000. That said, if 9/11 still happened then I think Gore would table Iraq plans until Afghanistan was fixed, which he'd probably fail at just like Bush.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
This. Hillary Clinton wasn't an outlier; pretty much everybody tied to the Clinton Administration wanted a piece of Saddam by 2000. That said, if 9/11 still happened then I think Gore would table Iraq plans until Afghanistan was fixed, which he'd probably fail at just like Bush.
I certainly don't dispute that Al Gore could have invaded Iraq; however, I doubt that it would have been a certainty--after all, would the mission in Afghanistan have been fully finished by the mid-2000s under a President Gore?
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Sure, Iran's military would pose more of a fight for the U.S. than the Iraqi military did in our TL; however, I am still not convinced that the U.S. would be unable to effectively take care of them.
That's not the point. You asked if a war in Iran would be costly, and yes, it would be, to the point where the cost outways the benefit.
The Sudanese proved an important partner in North Africa when it came to the War on Terror. Assuming Gore is still fighting an alternate War on Terror, then the Sudanese will still be in the position it was in during OTL WoT. The main thing to remember is that Darfur didn't become a major issue on the world stage until 2004, and intervention into the region would, for a variety of reasons, be a non-issue for American politicians. Gore may facilitate talks between both sides of the conflict, but boots-on-the-ground intervention is incredibly unlikely.
Would the situation in Afghanistan have been sufficiently stable by the mid-2000s for Al Gore to invade Iraq even if he would have actually wanted to do this, though?
Potentially- if NATO focuses its efforts into dealing with Afghanistan first, then it's possible that the situation would be stable enough that an intervention in Iraq come the mid-2000s isn't off the table. And if Gore can get UN backing, then it'll be a walk.
 
Top