WI Pelosi had never become President, and Bush (or Cheney) had carried out the so-called troop "surge" in Iraq?
Of course, it's now conventional wisdom, that the Iraq War was unwinnable.
However, I've read some plausible-sounding arguments, that the surge would actually have had a decent chance of success, as it would not merely have involved an increase in troop levels, but also a fundamental shift in strategy: Replacing small-footprint/force-protection with large-footprint/population-protection.
So, what is your opinion... is it plausible that the surge, if implemented, could have resulted in an ATL where all of the following is true (or is it ASB):
1) The Republic of Iraq still includes the Sunni provinces, there is no independent State of Iraq. Kurdistan is still at least nominally part of a unified Iraq as well.
2) The coup never occurred, instead of an ISF junta there is still a democratically elected government in Baghdad, and Maliki is still PM, not living in exile in Dearborn.
3) There is still a substantial Sunni minority in Baghdad, yet sectarian violence has fallen dramatically.
4) The Sadr and Badr militias have been defeated or incorporated into the ISF, Iraq's elected government controls both Sadr City and Basra.
5) As in OTL, Al-Queda in Iraq has been defeated by the Sunni tribal militias. I know it's now the prevailing view, based on the fact that AQI was not defeated until after the US left, that the US troop presence was strengthening AQI more than it was suppressing it. However, I'm not sure that is true. The Awakening movement actually started in late 2006, while US troop strength in Anbar was at its peak, and had the US remained to assist the Awakening forces, it's possible they might actually have beaten AQI even faster.
.
Of course, it's now conventional wisdom, that the Iraq War was unwinnable.
However, I've read some plausible-sounding arguments, that the surge would actually have had a decent chance of success, as it would not merely have involved an increase in troop levels, but also a fundamental shift in strategy: Replacing small-footprint/force-protection with large-footprint/population-protection.
So, what is your opinion... is it plausible that the surge, if implemented, could have resulted in an ATL where all of the following is true (or is it ASB):
1) The Republic of Iraq still includes the Sunni provinces, there is no independent State of Iraq. Kurdistan is still at least nominally part of a unified Iraq as well.
2) The coup never occurred, instead of an ISF junta there is still a democratically elected government in Baghdad, and Maliki is still PM, not living in exile in Dearborn.
3) There is still a substantial Sunni minority in Baghdad, yet sectarian violence has fallen dramatically.
4) The Sadr and Badr militias have been defeated or incorporated into the ISF, Iraq's elected government controls both Sadr City and Basra.
5) As in OTL, Al-Queda in Iraq has been defeated by the Sunni tribal militias. I know it's now the prevailing view, based on the fact that AQI was not defeated until after the US left, that the US troop presence was strengthening AQI more than it was suppressing it. However, I'm not sure that is true. The Awakening movement actually started in late 2006, while US troop strength in Anbar was at its peak, and had the US remained to assist the Awakening forces, it's possible they might actually have beaten AQI even faster.
.
Last edited: