Arab Spring in 2008

Suppose the sequence of events to Arab Spring started 3 years earlier.

How would George W. Bush deal with the events in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya? Would he have intervened in Libya?
 
Suppose the sequence of events to Arab Spring started 3 years earlier.

How would George W. Bush deal with the events in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya? Would he have intervened in Libya?

The Arab Spring protests began in December of 2010, and their first main impact - the removal of Tunisian leader Zine Ben Ali in a military coup - occurred in January 2011. On February 11, 2011, Hosni Mubarak resigned, and in late February the Libyan Civil war began. The Syrian protests and subsequent Civil War began around March-April, and the Libyan Civil War concluded in October.

This means that, if these events were shifted exactly 3 years to the past, they would have played a huge role in not only the last year of the Bush government, but the 2008 Presidential Election as well. Let's not forget that the US still has troops in Iraq in 08.

How would Bush respond? My guess is that he would act very similarly to Obama. In Tunisia and Egypt, the US would tacitly support our allies before switching sides and endorsing the activists once it was clear that Ben Ali and Mubarak were on their way out. In Libya, we would wait quite a while before intervening. People in 08 would be wary of another foreign war under the leadership of Bush, but intervention in Libya was ultimately a guarantee due to the significant desire to intervene by Britain, France, and other European nations.

Let's also remember that 2008 saw the beginning of the Recession. The financial world was beginning to panic as early as 2007, but September 08 saw it really fall apart. This means that in early 08, economic issues won't be as big of an issue, and foreign policy could very well define the primaries and the general election until the big banks really start falling in September.

Ultimatly, I am pretty sure that Bush would act very similar to Obama. What I am not certain of is how the presidential candidates would act. Perhaps Hillary could use her foreign policy chops to try to upstage Obama? I think McCain will still secure the GOP ticket, but how would he face an Obama or Hillary? I really don't know.
 
To do this, you need to have the recession start earlier. And with BUSH as President, it would be COMPLETELY different.
 
To do this, you need to have the recession start earlier. And with BUSH as President, it would be COMPLETELY different.

For the stimulus there would be a slightly greater focus on tax cuts and military spending then Obama's stimulus, that is about it.
 
I can see Egypt turning out the same. Ditto Tunisia. As for Libya, Bush might have been more willing to intervene than Obama, as would his advisors. I can't see McCain opposing going into Libya, or Biden. However, I CAN see more votes going to Barr or McKinney. I could also see other butterflies in House and Senate races.
And you can bet that, if NATO is going into Libya, the Georgian situation might turn out a lot differently...
 
The Arab Spring protests began in December of 2010, and their first main impact - the removal of Tunisian leader Zine Ben Ali in a military coup - occurred in January 2011. On February 11, 2011, Hosni Mubarak resigned, and in late February the Libyan Civil war began. The Syrian protests and subsequent Civil War began around March-April, and the Libyan Civil War concluded in October.

This means that, if these events were shifted exactly 3 years to the past, they would have played a huge role in not only the last year of the Bush government, but the 2008 Presidential Election as well. Let's not forget that the US still has troops in Iraq in 08.

How would Bush respond? My guess is that he would act very similarly to Obama. In Tunisia and Egypt, the US would tacitly support our allies before switching sides and endorsing the activists once it was clear that Ben Ali and Mubarak were on their way out. In Libya, we would wait quite a while before intervening. People in 08 would be wary of another foreign war under the leadership of Bush, but intervention in Libya was ultimately a guarantee due to the significant desire to intervene by Britain, France, and other European nations.

Let's also remember that 2008 saw the beginning of the Recession. The financial world was beginning to panic as early as 2007, but September 08 saw it really fall apart. This means that in early 08, economic issues won't be as big of an issue, and foreign policy could very well define the primaries and the general election until the big banks really start falling in September.

Ultimatly, I am pretty sure that Bush would act very similar to Obama. What I am not certain of is how the presidential candidates would act. Perhaps Hillary could use her foreign policy chops to try to upstage Obama? I think McCain will still secure the GOP ticket, but how would he face an Obama or Hillary? I really don't know.


In this scenario, the theory that the Arab Spring is the result of the shining example of democracy in Iraq ie Bush's doing, would look a lot stronger, closer cause and effect.:D

Before anyone flips out, I do not personally support this theory, just pointing out an ATL effect.
 
In this scenario, the theory that the Arab Spring is the result of the shining example of democracy in Iraq ie Bush's doing, would look a lot stronger, closer cause and effect.:D

Before anyone flips out, I do not personally support this theory, just pointing out an ATL effect.

Well, as somebody above pointed out, you also might need an earlier recession, since the recession is what set off the Arab Spring. While the neocon idea of spreading democracy may hold more water in this timeline, the idea of a recession-caused Arab Spring would still also be considered.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Well, as somebody above pointed out, you also might need an earlier recession, since the recession is what set off the Arab Spring. While the neocon idea of spreading democracy may hold more water in this timeline, the idea of a recession-caused Arab Spring would still also be considered.

It was the recession followed by a spike in food prices that set the conditions needed, and it is easy to move up 3 years. You need the Fed to hike interest rates several years earlier to bust what is the housing bubble. The recession will not be as long as OTL, but it can be as deep. Then you need to mess with food prices, which has a lot to do with corn to ethanol, so you need a change to when we do the farm policies, so we need oil price to spike earlier. These are two pretty easy POD, get a Fed chairman more concerned about bubbles, and then do some interruption of oil supplies. The oil supplies can be done with some butterflies from the Iraq war, say terrorists make a major strike on Saudi facilities, the Saudis are upset and slow down exports, the Saudis invest less than OTL, Iran/Saudi war or near war with Hormuz shutdown for a bit.
 
In this scenario, the theory that the Arab Spring is the result of the shining example of democracy in Iraq ie Bush's doing, would look a lot stronger, closer cause and effect.:D

Before anyone flips out, I do not personally support this theory, just pointing out an ATL effect.

The people of the Middle East got to watch the democratic process, them having modern campaigns, debates and free and fair voting on their TVs over the course of several years so they saw its postives and negatives play out. They saw the Iraqis create and vote on a Constitution as well.

Others in the Arab world didn't rise up because of that, but lets just say I very much think the uprisings would not have been pro-democracy ones without it. They would have been focused on replacing one dictactorship for another.
 
The people of the Middle East got to watch the democratic process, them having modern campaigns, debates and free and fair voting on their TVs over the course of several years so they saw its postives and negatives play out. They saw the Iraqis create and vote on a Constitution as well.

Others in the Arab world didn't rise up because of that, but lets just say I very much think the uprisings would not have been pro-democracy ones without it. They would have been focused on replacing one dictactorship for another.

The people of the Middle East got to watch the unfolding of a war of aggression, an ensuing brutal civil war, religious extremism's consequence on the dead bodies littered in the streets over the course of several years so they saw the positives and negative play out. They saw the Iraqis as a model for what the Americans called democracy could become.

Others in the Arab world didn't rise up because of that, but lets just say I very much think the uprisings would not have been pro-democracy ones had replacing one dictactorship for another not worked out so well for every other country, ever.

I'm quite thankful the Arab view of democracy isn't as damaged post-Bush II as the Russian one was post-Bush I.
 
The people of the Middle East got to watch the unfolding of a war of aggression, an ensuing brutal civil war, religious extremism's consequence on the dead bodies littered in the streets over the course of several years so they saw the positives and negative play out. They saw the Iraqis as a model for what the Americans called democracy could become.

Others in the Arab world didn't rise up because of that, but lets just say I very much think the uprisings would not have been pro-democracy ones had replacing one dictactorship for another not worked out so well for every other country, ever.

I'm quite thankful the Arab view of democracy isn't as damaged post-Bush II as the Russian one was post-Bush I.

The people of the Middle East and North Africa are better informed then you give them credit for. They knew who was trying to drag Iraq into a Civil War (al-Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria).

They also know that the murderous despots in the region were striking at Iraq out of fear. Because, a simple idea that people get a chance to pick their own leaders is a powerful one and one that is quite dangerous to the system that is in place.

This below was more dangerous to the status quo in the region then anything else, because people who have lived under shit dictatorships for generations saw it and flawed though it may be as far better then the historic cycle of violent dictatorship/revolution-coup, decades of dictatorship, followed by another set of revolutions-coups leading to another set of dictatorships.

ele2.jpg


The Arab street could seperate their opposition to the war itself and from the violence backed by those opposed to the democratic process to see a better way of picking and tossing out their leaders then the historic cycle I talked about they have been stuck in for a very long time.

So, when the spark was struck for the next set of revolutions in 2010 they wanted the ability to pick their leaders democratically not to just go from one dictator to another. Iraq didn't cause the spark that led to the Arab Spring, but it very much influenced what kind of politcal system the people wanted to replace their dictator with.
 
Last edited:
The people of the Middle East got to watch the democratic process, them having modern campaigns, debates and free and fair voting on their TVs over the course of several years so they saw its postives and negatives play out. They saw the Iraqis create and vote on a Constitution as well.

Others in the Arab world didn't rise up because of that, but lets just say I very much think the uprisings would not have been pro-democracy ones without it. They would have been focused on replacing one dictactorship for another.

I think the people of the Middle East were horrified if anything by the violence in newly democratic Iraq compared to the stability of Saddam's regime.

And it's a bit patronising that you think the population of the region can only take democratic examples from other countries in the region. There's still Europe, the US, South America, etc.
 
Top