So over the last few hours I’ve read a few threads about how a Bush victory in ‘92 affects future elections, the economy, pop culture, and the wars in the Middle East. But very little seem to touch on the foreign policy of his second term. For example what will he do in say...Somalia or Rwanda or Yugoslavia? What will HW do differently and what will he do the same as Clinton did IOTL?
Foreign policy changes after a Bush win in ‘92
- Thread starter ImperialxWarlord
- Start date
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
In 1994, the Rwanda President’s plane was shot down by a missile. And as a result, the Hutu majority murdered approximately 800,000 Tutsi minority persons. Yes, 4/5’s of a million persons.
Here’s going to be the tension: We in the U.S. had taken a hit in Somalia with the Blackhawk Down incident.
All the same I hope we can move in Rwanda sooner than Clinton’s July 23, 1994.
Rwanda: archive special | Special reports | guardian.co.uk
Last edited:
But if HW does things differently then black hawk down might not happen. So there won’t be as much hesitation to get involved.In 1994, the Rwanda President’s plane was shot down by a missile. And as a result, the Hutu majority murdered approximately 800,000 Tutsi minority persons.
Here’s going to be the tension: We in the U.S. had taken a hit in Somalia with the Blackhawk Down incident.
All the same I hope we can move in Rwanda sooner than Clinton’s July 23, 1994.
Rwanda: archive special | Special reports | guardian.co.uk
www.theguardian.com
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
And in that sense a reroll is good.
Look, as a human being, I hope for boring prosperity.
But for AH purposes, we need Bush to have tension, if not foreign policy, then maybe economic downturn or political scandal. And really, for a good story maybe three different obstacles he needs to maneuver around, but no more than three.
I feel like the tension would be that the Congress will still be democratic so there’ll be some butting of heads there. Success abroad but stalemate at home.
Which probably means a situation similar to OTL Clinton's admin when the GOP held the congress. Meaning nothing really gets done and the economy begins to boom anyway because of tech.
I can picture Bush Senior doing better vis a vis Rwanda and Somalia. I always viewed Bush Senior the best president foreign policy wise as he had much experience previously as ambassador to the UN in 1971 and then Nixon's ambassador to the PRC the following year. You also have to give him credit for being cautious and pragmatic during the fall of the Soviet Union.
Yeah that’s what I was thinking. Unless something happens that causes the Democrats to do really bad in that year I can’t see congress going republican.
Yeah. He had a good head for foreign policy I’d say. I think he’d have a much better policy in regards to Somalia and Rwanda. But I don’t know what his policy would be for Yugoslavia. That place was a real quagmire.
Probably pretty similar to Clinton's overall. As you say, it was a mess. Though one change for Bush, having already been a "wartime" President with the Gulf War, he won't be as hesitant in his actions and US forces are likely to have less restrictive ROEs.
Like part of me wants to say with he’d do better but then I think “it was such a mess, how do you fix it? You kinda can’t”. Other than intervening earlier I’m not too sure. Or somehow getting the UN to send more peacekeepers that actually have balls. At least intervening earlier might stop the worst massacres from happening.
Bush Sr. then Quayle/Dole/Kemp going through a couple interventions that fail/end up acting as vote losers could mean hawks shift democrat in the 2000s and not late 2010s like OTL. This would be in a different context than OTL's shift and something that's more grassroots and not as sped up by individual leadership on top as OTL's.
OTOH maybe not, since bill clinton type triangulation will have been proven to be an election loser so less 80s to 00s reaganite-lite/rockefeller rep dems than OTL
OTOH maybe not, since bill clinton type triangulation will have been proven to be an election loser so less 80s to 00s reaganite-lite/rockefeller rep dems than OTL
Colin Powell will advise Bush to avoid intervention. In fact, Powell opposed intervention in Kuwait. However, Cheney and Wolfowitz will advise Bush to intervene more.
Staying out of Somalia or doubling down after the Black Hawk Down incident might send Bin Laden a different message than he got OTL.
FWIW, Bob Dole supported Clinton’s decision not to intervene in Rwanda.
I wonder if Bush would take Russia’s potential reaction into consideration when deciding what to do in the Balkans. It’s been speculated that Clinton regretted that he didn’t intervene in Rwanda, and that that made him more interventionist afterwards.
Staying out of Somalia or doubling down after the Black Hawk Down incident might send Bin Laden a different message than he got OTL.
FWIW, Bob Dole supported Clinton’s decision not to intervene in Rwanda.
I wonder if Bush would take Russia’s potential reaction into consideration when deciding what to do in the Balkans. It’s been speculated that Clinton regretted that he didn’t intervene in Rwanda, and that that made him more interventionist afterwards.
I think he’d go harder in Somalia. IIRC he actually had a lot more troops there for awhile but he pulled them out or Clinton pulled them out early on. If things go smoothly in Somalia I don’t think he’ll feel cautious about intervening since he’ll have had a good record so far in regards to that.
From what I recall black hawk down made jihadists more confident because they felt America could in fact be beaten. But I don’t think that butterflies the ‘93 bombings because they happened first. Although hopefully this time around Bin laden gets offed by HW.
Yeah not sure how he would react to Russia’s intervention in Yugoslavia. As I mentioned earlier I’m not sure what he could do differently in Yugoslavia other than intervene earlier.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
800,000 persons were killed over 100 days, which is quick, but there’s still enough time to do something.
Rwanda genocide: 100 days of slaughter
In just 100 days in 1994, some 800,000 people were slaughtered in Rwanda by ethnic Hutu extremists - how did the genocide happen?
www.bbc.com
Following the president’s plane going down, the killing was done by using government checkpoints and checking ID cards which already existed and which showed ethnic group, by activating a youth wing as a militia, and by setting up a radio station to preach hate.
Much of the killing was done by machete.
To stop it, you’re going to have to shoot people, straight up. You’re going to need to go hard at the beginning, or else people don’t get the message and stop. That means, erring on the side of shooting.
I remember talking with a Czech guy, in Las Vegas of all places. And he was in favor of borders which shoot people. At first, I thought he was internalizing oppression which he had either lived through or had heard about from his family. He pointed out that if you really do it at the beginning 100%, you won’t actually have to shoot too many people. And I guess he has a point, especially in crisis situations.
I’m not saying there’s moral equivalency between what we arguably needed to do in Rwanda and what East Germany did on their border, with “us” being Belgium, the UN, the U.S., the French, and maybe more.
I am saying it’s largely going to be perceived that way, especially on a superficial look.
Last edited:
The OP isn’t writing a timeline as far as they’ve said, and even if they were, it’s up to them whether or not have any tension in it.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Absolutely, I’m just kicking around some ideas, and they’re free to accept or not just as they choose.
I am hardcore about taking genocide seriously, as I suspect many of us are. But there are many different, specific ways to do this.
PNWKing
Banned
Bush will have a "new" Secretary of State. Our choices here include James Baker, bizarrely Pat Robertson, or someone like Lee Iacocca. A new "advisor" on foreign policy might have impacts. Bush might prefer a "steady hand on the till", someone who would help things go more like OTL Gulf War and less like OTL Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
James Baker was Bush’s Secretary of State during his 1st term, and then left to help with Bush’s re-election campaign. Sometimes a person likes coming back to a previous job, sometimes they don’t.