Foreign policy of an Al Gore Administration (and his successor(s))

MisterWild

Banned
How would Gore have handled foreign policy had he won in 2000?

Please talk about how Gore would have handled all of these countries/foreign policy challenges:

-Afghanistan
-Iraq
-North Korea
-Iran
-Libya
-Syria
-The Arab-Israeli conflict
-Darfur/Sudan
-Pakistan
-Russia
-Cuba
-Various international treaties
-Other important countries (China, India, the EU, etc.).

Also, how would Al Gore's successor(s) have handled foreign policy, including the Arab Spring (if it would have still occurred)?
 
algore

no iraq war troops sent to afghanastan. the others i cant say. becuase gor never won which maybe a bad thing but i dont know for sure:eek:
 
no iraq war troops sent to afghanastan. the others i cant say. becuase gor never won which maybe a bad thing but i dont know for sure:eek:
If there is no Iraq war those troops will likely stay home. We cannot supply much more troops in Afghanistan than we already did.

Afghanistan will be the same, as for the rest, slightly less hardline and more conciliating
 
How would Gore have handled foreign policy had he won in 2000?

As far as Gore was concerned there would be no 'war on terror', as within a month of taking office he would have declared a MUCH more important 'war on carbon' ('war on greenhouse gasses' being a much less compelling phrase). If he also had a solid majority in Congress we could expect to see the US sign numerous treaties for CO2 reduction, under UN auspices where possible.

We'd never find out who was behind the 9/11 attacks. Any claims of responsibility would be judged non-credible. Just as well, since although the defense budget would only be cut 10% the US military would lose 90% of its combat capability.
 
no iraq war troops sent to afghanastan. the others i cant say. becuase gor never won which maybe a bad thing but i dont know for sure:eek:

Al Gore and the DLC dems where itching to go into Iraq since 1996... there is no particular reason Iraq gets butterflied away with his victory
 
As far as Gore was concerned there would be no 'war on terror', as within a month of taking office he would have declared a MUCH more important 'war on carbon' ('war on greenhouse gasses' being a much less compelling phrase). If he also had a solid majority in Congress we could expect to see the US sign numerous treaties for CO2 reduction, under UN auspices where possible.

We'd never find out who was behind the 9/11 attacks. Any claims of responsibility would be judged non-credible. Just as well, since although the defense budget would only be cut 10% the US military would lose 90% of its combat capability.

Um, all highly unlikely. At least the Clinton/Gore administration kept an eye on Osama bin Laden.
 
As far as Gore was concerned there would be no 'war on terror', as within a month of taking office he would have declared a MUCH more important 'war on carbon' ('war on greenhouse gasses' being a much less compelling phrase). If he also had a solid majority in Congress we could expect to see the US sign numerous treaties for CO2 reduction, under UN auspices where possible.

..."war on carbon"?

We'd never find out who was behind the 9/11 attacks. Any claims of responsibility would be judged non-credible. Just as well, since although the defense budget would only be cut 10% the US military would lose 90% of its combat capability.

Why wouldn't we find out who was behind 9/11 if Al Gore were POTUS? That doesn't make any sense.

And what? 10% defense funding cuts=90% of the US military's previous combat capability is lost? What universe are you getting these numbers or estimates from????
 
..."war on carbon"?

Please look up the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' and, for amusement, the phrase 'the Gore effect.'

Why wouldn't we find out who was behind 9/11 if Al Gore were POTUS? That doesn't make any sense.

Assuming Gore as POTUS would slash the Ops division of the CIA in proportion to the cuts he made as Veep in his 'reinventing government' phase.

And what? 10% defense funding cuts=90% of the US military's previous combat capability is lost? What universe are you getting these numbers or estimates from????

Please look up the US OOB during the Clinton years.

Yes, I'm taking a negative slant on things. I'm quite sure others will be along to tell us how everything would have been sunshine and rainbows if Gore won, and how he'd be remembered as the POTUS who Saved the Planet.
 
Please look up the US OOB during the Clinton years.

Yes it's almost as if a president taking office in 1993 would somehow...think that maybe something had happened recently which might...make it possible...to downsize the military? Was there anything that happened a few years before 1993 that could make a large military seem redundant?


Al Gore and the DLC dems where itching to go into Iraq since 1996... there is no particular reason Iraq gets butterflied away with his victory

Yeah, this. Many of the large numbers of Democrats who voted for the Iraq war (and later turned against it out of political expediency) had been enamored by the idea of a large US military adventure to oust Saddam/make the middle east safe for democracy/whatever for some time.

Remember the line John Kerry was torn apart for "a more sensitive war on terror". This is probably what you'd see with Gore; a nebulously pro human rights/women's rights/ democracy rhetoric, no military tribunals or gitmo for captured AQ fighters, but a war on terror nonetheless. US boots on the ground ARE going into the middle east/greater southwest asia area in quantity after any alt 9/11, there were just too many trends within American culture and political thought building towards something like it. Even absent 9/11, a large US intervention in the greater middle east might just happen.

I think you just need to look at the former Yugoslavia to realize that even US liberals can be quite fond of military adventurism.
 
9/11 is entirely butterflied away, and from there its hard to say exactly how Gore's foreign policy goes, considering OTL was so dominated by the terrorism/Iraq issue. Likely we see a US that's much more focused on domestic issues; economic, and the continuing culture wars.
 
If there is no Iraq war those troops will likely stay home. We cannot supply much more troops in Afghanistan than we already did.

From what I understand, we pulled political and military support from Afghanistan when it was most needed, and we're still paying the price today.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
9/11 is entirely butterflied away, and from there its hard to say exactly how Gore's foreign policy goes, considering OTL was so dominated by the terrorism/Iraq issue. Likely we see a US that's much more focused on domestic issues; economic, and the continuing culture wars.

The people who could have caught the 19 terrorists before the attacks are fairly low ranking, and well below the rank that meets with the President directly. 9/11 is still likely to occur, IMO.

Gore policies will be focused on Carbon before 9/11. He will be trying to cut deals with foreign powers to reduce carbon. After the attacks, he will have to make terrorism his #1 priority. Afghanistan still happens, but the exact outcome is butterflied. Gore thinks about, but does not invade Iraq. Bush was strongly driven to do this, Gore will not be. Gore will try to link carbon initiatives with the War on Terror. I can see him electrifying Afghanistan with solar panels.
 
The people who could have caught the 19 terrorists before the attacks are fairly low ranking, and well below the rank that meets with the President directly. 9/11 is still likely to occur, IMO.

Gore policies will be focused on Carbon before 9/11. He will be trying to cut deals with foreign powers to reduce carbon. After the attacks, he will have to make terrorism his #1 priority. Afghanistan still happens, but the exact outcome is butterflied. Gore thinks about, but does not invade Iraq. Bush was strongly driven to do this, Gore will not be. Gore will try to link carbon initiatives with the War on Terror. I can see him electrifying Afghanistan with solar panels.

How about Gore using 9/11 as a way of trying to get off foreign oil? With the public support from the attacks, he'll be able to push through energy independence bills, maybe with ideas like Thomas Freidman's $1-per-gallon "Patriot Tax" on gasoline and a carbon tax, along with increased drilling and investment in green energy.
 
The people who could have caught the 19 terrorists before the attacks are fairly low ranking, and well below the rank that meets with the President directly. 9/11 is still likely to occur, IMO.

Gore policies will be focused on Carbon before 9/11. He will be trying to cut deals with foreign powers to reduce carbon. After the attacks, he will have to make terrorism his #1 priority. Afghanistan still happens, but the exact outcome is butterflied. Gore thinks about, but does not invade Iraq. Bush was strongly driven to do this, Gore will not be. Gore will try to link carbon initiatives with the War on Terror. I can see him electrifying Afghanistan with solar panels.
Yeah but there were many opportunities to stop them thus it may be butterflied away
If it is like others have said Gore will focus on decreasing carbon emissions as much as possible and with the magority in the senate I think he will get what he wants. Another question is what happens in 2004, let's say 9/11 doesn't happen.
 
Absolutely nothing is happening on greenhouse gases from Gore's inauguration until at least 9/11. Nothing.
Why? First off, Gore didn't campaign on it as a signature issue -- Bush took a lot of the wind out of Gore's sails by signalling that he, too, would support stricter environmental standards.
Second, Gore wouldn't control the Senate. Assuming that the 2000 elections otherwise follow OTL, the election would result in a 50-50 split chamber, but then Lieberman would resign to become VP, and the Republican governor of Connecticut would choose a Republican to replace him in the Senate.
Now Gore could plausibly use 9/11 as a way to put some serious pressure on Republicans to pass a carbon tax, by pointing out that Al Qaeda is funded by oil money. But with the 1993 BTU tax debacle still fresh in the minds of the always-venal Congress, he'd have an uphill climb.
 
Top