DBWI: WI no US defeat in Iraq?

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.


.
 
Last edited:
ooc:What are you on about man,the US is losing in Iraq,even if we do 'win'in like 15 years,we'll only have succeded in creating an Iranian ally/puppet.
 
This would probably butterfly away the Korean conflict, as a still militarily-strong looking USA would defer even Kim Jong-Il from attempting to conquest the South, and with it take away the unified Seoul-based, Korean Republic.
Maybe we could see a less active European Union in TTL, and maybe the UK would stick with the USA and avoid the leaving of the US from NATO?
 
ooc:What are you on about man,the US is losing in Iraq,even if we do 'win'in like 15 years,we'll only have succeded in creating an Iranian ally/puppet.

OOC: The US is winning in Iraq, violence has gone down dramatically and more people are dying of violence in Mexico then in Iraq. Also why would Iraq become an Iranian puppet. There are a lot of Kurds, Sunnis, and moderate Shias holding on to power in Iraq. Anyway I hope this thread doesn't become loaded with OOCs claiming that Iraq war is lost and arguments against it. We have Chat for those arguments.
 
OOC: The US is winning in Iraq, violence has gone down dramatically and more people are dying of violence in Mexico then in Iraq. Also why would Iraq become an Iranian puppet. There are a lot of Kurds, Sunnis, and moderate Shias holding on to power in Iraq. Anyway I hope this thread doesn't become loaded with OOCs claiming that Iraq war is lost and arguments against it. We have Chat for those arguments.

ooc:You have a shia majority,thats going to be pro-Iranian no matter what you do.

Also theres more people dying of violence in America than Haiti,which is the more stable?
 

Hashasheen

Banned
ooc:You have a shia majority,thats going to be pro-Iranian no matter what you do.
OOC: Not really, since the main secular Shia parties have taken great pains to indentify themselves as Iraqi nationalists, and the religious ones attempting to downplay their ties.
 
ooc:What are you on about man,the US is losing in Iraq,even if we do 'win'in like 15 years,we'll only have succeded in creating an Iranian ally/puppet.

ooc:You have a shia majority,thats going to be pro-Iranian no matter what you do.

Also theres more people dying of violence in America than Haiti,which is the more stable?

OOC: Many Shias are anti-Iranian or nationalist. Also I meant on a per-capita basis.
 
Than there would still be a Pakistan as Bush and Cheney wouldn't have been assassinated by militants trained in the tribal areas, so no US invasion.
 
Top