DBWI: Bush Invades Iraq

[d32123]

I recently finished reading a biography of President George W. Bush and I guess at one point Bush and his inner circle seriously considered invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein's government. How do you think the War on Terror would have been different if they had decided to go through with the invasion?

 

[EternalCynic]

The prospect would have seriously divided NATO and hurt US relations with Russia and China. I wouldn't be surprised if by 2010, NATO either has collapsed or exists only on paper.

As for the invasion itself, the US would have toppled the regime within weeks thanks merely to its overwhelming conventional armaments.

The occupation would have been a disaster. I'm not sure whether a Baath Resistance would form, but rival sectarian militias would quickly fill the void. Iran and Syria would have backed Shia militias while Saudi Arabia would back Sunni ones, causing a proxy war in the heart of the Middle East. Eventually there would have been Yugoslav-like violence with a similar outcome.

In OTL, Bush left office in disgrace with the subprime mortgages crisis. ITL, he would have been reviled to the point Republicans are afraid to mention him.

 

[Osakadave]

This would need a POD back in the Clinton years. I think one verson of the Iraq Assistance Act of 1998 called for regime change.


Maybe if Desert Raptor wasn't as effective in conclusively wiping out the remainder of the weapons program?

 

[The Red]

Perhaps the Arab Spring is kicked off quicker with the toppling of one of the most powerful regimes? Bush might be held in the same regard that Prime Minister Blair is today.

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

Surely the massive diversion of resources would mean that without a strong ISAF to back up Hamid Karzai Afghanistan would have collapsed back into civil war?

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Surely the massive diversion of resources would mean that without a strong ISAF to back up Hamid Karzai Afghanistan would have collapsed back into civil war?

No, we would not be diverting resources, simply using those that were sitting stateside or in Europe as we could not supply them in Afghanistan, the US maintains troops for 2 1/2 wars on this scale and we could only shove so many into Afghanistan

 

[Osakadave]

Surely the massive diversion of resources would mean that without a strong ISAF to back up Hamid Karzai Afghanistan would have collapsed back into civil war?

What a mess that would be! President Vilsack has enough on his plate with the economic mess Bush left him, and a messy war would just make it all the worse. (And just imagine how bad the economy would be if we were in two.)

 

[Remicas]

2001 Bush invade Afghanistan.
2003 Bush invade Irak.
Then what ? If he's reelected in 2004, will he invade Iran too in 2005 ?

 

[Osakadave]

Perhaps the Arab Spring is kicked off quicker with the toppling of one of the most powerful regimes? Bush might be held in the same regard that Prime Minister Blair is today.

No, we would not be diverting resources, simply using those that were sitting stateside or in Europe as we could not supply them in Afghanistan, the US maintains troops for 2 1/2 wars on this scale and we could only shove so many into Afghanistan

DPRK might have tested that one.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

DPRK might have tested that one.

And we would still have US forces Korea and the ROK army is 600,000 strong and much better in quality than their northern neighbor, if the North Koreans were dumb enough to try anything they would get squished even if the US was up to its eyeballs in Iraq as well as Afghanistan

 

[Orville_third]

I disagree about Desert Raptor. After all, Hussein Kamil told the world Iraq had destroyed their WMD in 1995. It's a good thing Bush was willing to abandon any revenge fantasies and directly took Gore on about that during one of the debates. Now the UN inspectors can take on places like Pakistan (still not letting inspectors in, even after we documented the evidence on the Khan network).