DBWI: Iraq is invaded in 2003

With protests against the Hussein regime growing in intensity all over Iraq, I am reminded of a time where America and Iraq almost went to war with each other in 2003.

After 9/11, the US invaded Afghanistan to remove the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from the country, but George W Bush always had Iraq in his sights. He perpetuated stories that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al-Qaeda and was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. His commanders were preparing for what they called Operation Enduring Freedom and the US was going around the world, calling for allies to assist them in the invasion.

However, on the eve of war, a group of hackers released a explosive cache of documents which revealed that the Bush administration was creating false evidence and taking documents out of context in order to support their plans for war. Any support that the invasion had evaporated and Bush never went ahead with it.

But what if the United States did invade Iraq in 2003?
 
I doubt that Bush was really serious about invading Iraq. I mean, he couldn´t possibly be THAT stupid, could he? I am pretty sure such an invasion would have lead to chaos. It could even have lead to a strengthening of Islamic grouos in the country.
 
The entire idea of invading Iraq never made sense to me, and I always thought that Bush's smarter advisors would talk him out of it eventually, though the administration did get concessions out of Saddam Hussein out of the threats.

If they had actually done it, it would have mainly benefitted Iran by removing Iran's main rival in the region! The US military could overrun Iraq, though keeping the place pacified and the puppet government they would have installed in place might have been difficult, but if it leads to a war with Iran that is a very different matter.

If the POD is no revelation of the "dodgy dossiers", that butterflies away Tony Blair's resignation in 2002, by the way.
 
Hard to believe that even Bush would had been so idiot. It would had turned easily as Vietnam 2.0. True that Bush has often toyed with idea but he surely understand difficulties of such operation. And USA would had needed allies but who would be so idiot that would had gone to such war trip?

And even if Bush seriously would had planned such operation smarter military advisors would had said "no".
 
The idea was that Iran would then be surrounded by the new Iraqi democracy in the west, the new Afghan democracy and Pakistan (some democratic tradition) in the east, and Turkey (some democratic tradition) to the north. That would put tremendous pressure on the ayatollahs. As a bonus, you'd have a successful Arab democracy which would prove it's possible, and the terror-sponsoring governments in the region would fall.

Very pie in the sky, bordering on ASB, but some of the neocons really thought it could work.
 
Considering the escalating tensions on the Korean peninsula at the time I am, and always was, of the opinion that the "Dodgy Dossiers" were released from inside the administration not by hackers. The idea that hackers could successfully get their hands on the minutes of private meetings between Rumsfeld and Cheney never sat well with me. Especially given that USN units were actively engaged in suppression patrols along the NLL following the battle there in 02. It makes more sense that those who were pushing for an attempt to resolve the situation in Korea and those who thought that Afghanistan was about to be dropped and not rebuilt as it was IOTL were the ones who released the documents. Although there still isn't a real solution to Korea, Afghanistan wouldn't have gotten all the rebuilding support that it did if anyone had seriously gone into Iraq, and while i agree with those who say that the NeoCons fucked up the rebuilding, it could have been much worse. Instead of the shambling mess of an Afghan government we have now we could have ended up with an ongoing insurgency, especially if the ISF decided that its interests were being ignored and supported a resurgent Taliban.
 

Greenville

Banned
I think he would stop and wait until after the mission in Afghanistan had been completed before even contemplating such a move. After all, it would distract US resources from a group that already had killed thousands of Americans and there has never been any evidence since Clinton was in office that Iraq is claiming to rearm after the Gulf War. Even what he presented to the United Nations didn't prove they were rearming in any regard or even still possessed such weapons. Let alone there were actual intentions to use them or against the United States.
 
Guys, Saddam's army is all numbers no skill. The US would have rolled over them and set up a functioning democracy pretty easily. I suspect Bush could have gotten a NATO group together and President Clinton would have been able to scale it down once the new government was up and running, probably around 2009.
 
Guys, Saddam's army is all numbers no skill. The US would have rolled over them and set up a functioning democracy pretty easily. I suspect Bush could have gotten a NATO group together and President Clinton would have been able to scale it down once the new government was up and running, probably around 2009.

While i don't doubt that the US could roll over the Iraqi army in a week or two, where is the money for reconstruction going to come from? Secondly who's going to deal with the Korea mess? The Afghani reconstruction only really began to take hold after Clinton got into office and quadrupled the budget. Bush et al were pretty parsimonious with the reconstruction funds, the only reason that the situation stabilized was the EU countries taking the lead, and i doubt they would be willing to go in on two countries at the same time. The only reason Bush was able to get the commitments he did was because of the Korean situation flaring up when it did. If the US goes into Iraq you can bet that the Korean situation would have been downplayed, probably with disastrous results. China was all set to leave the situation alone until the US started massing battle fleets just off Korea, once that happened suddenly North Korea was ready to negotiate due to Chinese pressure. If the Chinese keep ignoring the situation I would bet that there would have been another war in Korea, probably right when the US was getting into Iraq. Given the troop commitments to Afghanistan, adding in Iraq and Korea at the same time would have probably necessitated a draft, which was and is political suicide in the US, or under committing to a massive degree with predictable results.
 
Guys, Saddam's army is all numbers no skill. The US would have rolled over them and set up a functioning democracy pretty easily. I suspect Bush could have gotten a NATO group together and President Clinton would have been able to scale it down once the new government was up and running, probably around 2009.

We rolled them easily in 1991. Most couldn't wait to surrender. A defector told us "I would die for Allah, but there's no way I'll die for Saddam".

Problem is running the country until a new government is in place, and making sure the new regime is stable. That's where we would have failed. The military is designed to kill people and break things. Nation-building isn't in the job description.
 
Well, no way does Bush get re-elected either way with the powder keg Iraq would undoubtedly be. Sending people to die in a war that goes south after Saddam is toppled? That will get old faster than dear old Dad's inability to fix the economy.

President McCain even said as much in 2009 after Saddam got out of the hospital - he briefly thought invading was a good idea but then his experience in Vietnam got the better of him and he didn't want a repeat of that.
 
Top