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

CaliGuy

Banned
Gore may facilitate talks between both sides of the conflict, but boots-on-the-ground intervention is incredibly unlikely.

Would NATO air strikes on Sudan be on the table, 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.

OK.

And if Gore can get UN backing, then it'll be a walk.

Would Gore actually be able to get U.N. backing, though?
 
Last edited:

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Would NATO air strikes on Sudan be on the table, though?
Not necessarily.

Would Gore be able to get U.N. backing, though?
It depends on the situation that Gore faces, but yes I would assume that if Gore was going to go into Iraq he would wait until he could get that backing. He is unlikely to jump in like Bush, but wait until America- and the worlds- hand is decidedly forced.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Not necessarily.

OK.

It depends on the situation that Gore faces, but yes I would assume that if Gore was going to go into Iraq he would wait until he could get that backing. He is unlikely to jump in like Bush, but wait until America- and the worlds- hand is decidedly forced.

Why exactly would France, Russia, and China agree to U.N. approval of a U.S. invasion of Iraq, though?

Also, what about if Gore can't get U.N. backing?
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Why exactly would France, Russia, and China agree to U.N. approval of a U.S. invasion of Iraq, though?
France would support intervention if all other paths to peace were extinguished. Russia would support intervention if it was given the needed evidence to justify said intervention. China is the same as France. If Gore can't deal with Iraq diplomatically but is able to prove the existence of a chemical and biological weapons programme, then intervention will get the support of those three. If there is a perceived necessity, then France, Russia, and China will sign off on it.
Also, what about if Gore can't get U.N. backing?
Then the intervention just won't happen. The situation Iraq was in pre-2003 is continued until Iraq shudders and collapses under its own weight and it becomes the responsibility of the US and those in the region to step up and step in.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
France would support intervention if all other paths to peace were extinguished. Russia would support intervention if it was given the needed evidence to justify said intervention. China is the same as France. If Gore can't deal with Iraq diplomatically but is able to prove the existence of a chemical and biological weapons programme, then intervention will get the support of those three. If there is a perceived necessity, then France, Russia, and China will sign off on it.

Would Gore actually be able to provide enough evidence for this, though?

Then the intervention just won't happen. The situation Iraq was in pre-2003 is continued until Iraq shudders and collapses under its own weight and it becomes the responsibility of the US and those in the region to step up and step in.

So, in other words, Iraq will simply become a humanitarian catastrophe and then fuel the refugee crisis even further once it implodes? :(
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Would Gore actually be able to provide enough evidence for this, though?
I don't know- I don't know how he'll approach it when the time comes, and I don't know if he'd of necessarily gone down that route. But if he did, then it's not hard to see him only going for it if he had enough evidence. Gore could still receive faulty intel, but the main thrust would instead likely have been the humanitarian argument from the onset.
So, in other words, Iraq will simply become a humanitarian catastrophe and then fuel the refugee crisis even further once it implodes? :(
Well, yeah. It already was a humanitarian catastrophe before the invasion, and without the intervention things would have only gotten worse for the Iraqi people, not better. It was a pressure cooker waiting to explode, and if it explodes by its own accord it's going to leave a black hole of bloodshed in the region.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I don't know- I don't know how he'll approach it when the time comes, and I don't know if he'd of necessarily gone down that route. But if he did, then it's not hard to see him only going for it if he had enough evidence.

If he won't go down that route at all, though, then there would be no invasion, no?

Gore could still receive faulty intel, but the main thrust would instead likely have been the humanitarian argument from the onset.

Didn't France, Russia, and China not care much about other countries' humanitarian problems, though?

Well, yeah. It already was a humanitarian catastrophe before the invasion, and without the intervention things would have only gotten worse for the Iraqi people, not better. It was a pressure cooker waiting to explode, and if it explodes by its own accord it's going to leave a black hole of bloodshed in the region.

OK. Also, just how much worse do you think that this would make the 2010s refugee crisis in Europe if Iraq implodes at the same time that Syria did in our TL?
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
If he won't go down that route at all, though, then there would be no invasion, no?
If he won't go down that route, then he still has the argument that going in is a humanitarian mission to remove a genocidal dictator. Just because there aren't UAV's loaded with Anthrax about to hit New York doesn't mean there isn't still an argument to be found.
Didn't France, Russia, and China not care much about other countries' humanitarian problems, though?
I'm not sure where you get the idea that France doesn't care- France acutely cared, but they were focused on a diplomatic resolution to the crisis before they would permit what they saw as an American adventure into the region. China shared these sentiments, and Russia would have approved had Bush proved what he claimed. Given how Gore isn't going to claim the same things, and will likely be angling for intervention with a different argument, it's possible that intervention would be approved.

What you're missing is that context surrounding Gore's intervention will be wildly different to Bush's; yes, the end result is Americans in Baghdad, but you underestimate how much will change in France alone between Gore winning the election and his hypothetical invasion. The main players behind France's refusal to join in may not even by in power at that point, with a potentially more Hawkish French Foreign Minister instead of Villepin.
OK. Also, just how much worse do you think that this would make the 2010s refugee crisis in Europe if Iraq implodes at the same time that Syria did in our TL?
I don't know. It's that simple- we've entered a known unknown given the butterfly's now flapping. But I would wager that it would be significantly worse if both Iraq and Syria just collapsed, with Iraq becoming a major proxy war between the Saudi's and Iran.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
If he won't go down that route, then he still has the argument that going in is a humanitarian mission to remove a genocidal dictator. Just because there aren't UAV's loaded with Anthrax about to hit New York doesn't mean there isn't still an argument to be found.

The humanitarian argument that can be used for Iraq in this TL can also be used to justify things such as color revolutions on Russia's doorstep, though.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that France doesn't care- France acutely cared, but they were focused on a diplomatic resolution to the crisis before they would permit what they saw as an American adventure into the region. China shared these sentiments, and Russia would have approved had Bush proved what he claimed. Given how Gore isn't going to claim the same things, and will likely be angling for intervention with a different argument, it's possible that intervention would be approved.

Maybe you're correct about France; however, in regards to Russia and China, do you really think that they would be willing to support U.S.-led democracy promotion in the Middle East?

Indeed, it was hard enough to get them to abstain on the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya in our TL, and that was when Libya's rebels were about to suffer a crushing defeat and who else knows what at the hands of Gaddafi!

What you're missing is that context surrounding Gore's intervention will be wildly different to Bush's; yes, the end result is Americans in Baghdad, but you underestimate how much will change in France alone between Gore winning the election and his hypothetical invasion. The main players behind France's refusal to join in may not even by in power at that point, with a potentially more Hawkish French Foreign Minister instead of Villepin.

Wasn't the anti-war Jacques Chirac the one who was ultimately calling the shots in France in regards to this, though?

I don't know. It's that simple- we've entered a known unknown given the butterfly's now flapping. But I would wager that it would be significantly worse if both Iraq and Syria just collapsed, with Iraq becoming a major proxy war between the Saudi's and Iran.

OK.

Also, though, off-topic, but what about the idea of a U.S. invasion of Libya in 2003? Would that have been plausible in place of a U.S. invasion of Iraq during this time?
 
Wasn't the anti-war Jacques Chirac the one who was ultimately calling the shots in France in regards to this, though?

I think so, but butterflies would affect France sooner than this. I'm not sure Chirac would have won a runoff election against someone less alienating than Jean Le Pen in 2002, and Le Pen making said runoff was something of a black swan event already.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I think so, but butterflies would affect France sooner than this. I'm not sure Chirac would have won a runoff election against someone less alienating than Jean Le Pen in 2002, and Le Pen making said runoff was something of a black swan event already.
How many French voters voted in 2002 based on Iraq, though?

Also, off-topic, but would a U.S. invasion of Libyain 2003 have been plausible?
 
How many French voters voted in 2002 based on Iraq, though?

Also, off-topic, but would a U.S. invasion of Libyain 2003 have been plausible?

Not that many, I imagine - Jean Le Pen was the Trump prototype back before that sort of thing was acceptable, so pretty much the entire French political spectrum united against him. The point being that a more hawkish candidate (if the Socialists have those, but whatever) might have beaten him and been President instead.

Libya, I think was considered compliant enough by then, so probably not.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Not that many, I imagine - Jean Le Pen was the Trump prototype back before that sort of thing was acceptable, so pretty much the entire French political spectrum united against him. The point being that a more hawkish candidate (if the Socialists have those, but whatever) might have beaten him and been President instead.

Wouldn't 2002 have been too easy for hawks to emerge among French Socialists, though?

Libya, I think was considered compliant enough by then, so probably not.

You mean that Gaddafi's decision to allow the U.S. to remove all of his nuclear equipment, et cetera would have been enough to prevent him from getting invaded, correct?
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
The humanitarian argument that can be used for Iraq in this TL can also be used to justify things such as color revolutions on Russia's doorstep, though.
Okay? But that doesn't stop a humanitarian argument being made.
Maybe you're correct about France; however, in regards to Russia and China, do you really think that they would be willing to support U.S.-led democracy promotion in the Middle East, though?
In this situation, depending on how well Gore can convince them and how he sells the intervention, I think they would accept it- if Chirac is still in power in France and decides to lend support to the intervention, given his relationship with Putin, Russia would drag its feet- mainly because of the implications such a move would have on its regional allies in the near future, but assuming that the intervention is pushed forward with overwhelming evidence to support whatever angle Gore goes for, then they're increasingly unlikely to say no. Abstain, maybe, but the use of their veto in this scenario would sour what were then relatively placid waters between America and Russia. China would go along if France is convinced, and if Russia joins would be under pressure to do so anyway.
Wasn't the anti-war Jacques Chirac the one who was ultimately calling the shots in France in regards to this?
Chirac opposed the war because he didn't believe that the threat being presented by America and Britain justified intervention, instead opting for a diplomatic solution. Again, it's about how Gore would sell the intervention, as well as his personal relationship with Chirac. If he can sell it and his relationship with Chirac is good, then France could lend political support for a broader UN intervention; after all, Chirac saw Saddam's removal as a positive thing, however also saw the way that America went about it IoTL as being unjustified. If it's a later intervention and the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, then it's possible he or his successor would lend political support to ensure the security of the region.
OK.

Also, though, off-topic, but what about the idea of a U.S. invasion of Libya in 2003? Would that have been plausible in place of a U.S. invasion of Iraq during this time?
That's very much on topic, but I'm afraid I can't answer that one.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't 2002 have been too easy for hawks to emerge among French Socialists, though?

The 1980's already saw a Socialist President do much of the same privatization frenzy that we associate with Reagan and Thatcher in the Anglosphere, so I think we'd already reached the point where Socialism was a meaningless label in France. In other words, no, I don't think a hawkish French Socialist is out of line.

You mean that Gaddafi's decision to allow the U.S. to remove all of his nuclear equipment, et cetera would have been enough to prevent him from getting invaded, correct?

Yeah, pretty much. Like I said, it takes a lot of rogue statesmanship for the international community to be okay with you getting ousted by the US army.
 

sdrucker

Banned
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.

Syria, using the excuse that Saddam's WMDs found their way there, or to free Lebanon from Syrian domination and/or colonization by a large population of guest workers, or just the overall badness of the Assads. But that would be ASB without invading Iraq first and a larger mobilization than Bush actually did.

On the other hand, invading Syria and having a US/NATO force there as well as Lebanon might have created the opportunity for a more multinational involvement in Israel/Palestine when Sharon pulled out of Gaza...
 
Syria, using the excuse that Saddam's WMDs found their way there, or to free Lebanon from Syrian domination and/or colonization by a large population of guest workers. But that would be ASB without invading Iraq first and a larger mobilization than Bush actually did.

Those are just pretexts, but they lack the OTL Iraq motive where the neoconservatives of the Bush Administration wanted to use Iraq to help reshape Middle Eastern government. Once they'd made Iraq into a democracy, they assumed that the rest of the region would follow without them having to resort to force again, just like Eastern Europe after the Berlin Wall came down.
 
Top