Gore wins and no Iraq War - effect on Global politics?

Let's say that Gore wins in 2000. For the sake of argument, let's assume that 9-11 (or a similar event) still occurs. (I'm aware that it could arguably have been foiled, even if just through butterfly effects).

Let's further say that Gore still orders a US military intervention in Afghanistan, but that he does not launch the war in Iraq. (Again, I'm aware there is some debate about this issue.)

What would be the effects on global politics? Like many here I'm more up-to-date on European politics than other countries, so the ones that come to mind are the UK, France, and Germany.

In Germany, Schroeder's (narrow) SDP win in 2002 was credited in part to his opposition to the Iraq War. Would this be enough to elect Stoiber? And if so what becomes of Angela Merkel, still CDU chair but not chancellor?

In France, would there have been an effect on the 2002 election? Would Jospin have been able to defeat Le Pen and make the runoff? I'm more skeptical here, given that the spring of 2002 (before the push for the Iraq War really hit) was maybe too early for the Iraq War and US popularity to have much of an effect.

How about on British politics, though? The 2006 coup that forced Blair to pledge to step down by 2007 was partially instigated by his already low ratings over Iraq and the Lebanon War (and the leak of the "Yo, Blair!" audio).

Absent the plunge in Blair's popularity following Iraq, would Blair have been confident enough to remove Brown? Would he have been able to stay in office until 2008 or 2009? He almost certainly wins a larger majority in 2005, for one thing.

Thoughts? Any other global elections or political changes resulting from the absence of an anti-Bush effect?
 
The 2002 elections in Germany were a close race, any butterflies unpredictable, but I think Schröder might still have made it (his handling of the Oder flood is often pinpointed as the turning point of the electoral campaign). Either way, if Stoiber wins the election, the German left may be much stronger today: no Hartz reforms (because the SPD would oppose them fiercely in opposition), no surge in popularity for "The Left", which so far has resulted in an inability of the centre-left camp to unite and use their parliamentary majorities. And, of course, no 2005 victory for Ms Merkel.
If the 2008 financial crisis still happens the same way it did IOTL, then I´d expect a pro-bank-controlling Red-Green coalition coming to power in 2009. Differences between the two political camps would be much clearer than IOTL (which would be way better for Southern Euope than the hegemony of Merkelian Austerity of OTL: German pro-austerity governments would be too weak to impose the policy continent-wide, and there would also be a chance of anti-austerity governments).

In the UK, Blair might have held on a lot longer, yes.

What about the US? Could Gore have been reelected in 2004, or would the Republicans in opposition still ride the momentum of fear and aggression after 9/11?

But I think the region most affected by butterflies is the Middle East. With Saddam still in power and nothing much going on in Iraq, al Qaeda would be weaker and ISIS/IS may never have developed. Whether the Arabellion would have occurred or not is much more difficult to say, though. Either way, by now Saddam might have died of natural causes or other reasons, so Iraq might be faced with some interesting and unstable times anyway, but people wouldn`t generally blame the US for all the mess.
 

Archibald

Banned
In France, would there have been an effect on the 2002 election? Would Jospin have been able to defeat Le Pen and make the runoff? I'm more skeptical here, given that the spring of 2002 (before the push for the Iraq War really hit) was maybe too early for the Iraq War and US popularity to have much of an effect.

In 2002 Jospin had all cards on hand to win. In fact he was so overconfident he would face Chirac at round 2, that he ran a very poor round 1 campaign. Crucially, he didn't bothered rallying the whole left votes behind him.

In the end that idiotic strategy blew in his face. The left vote was split to the extreme, so much that Jospin was beaten by Le Pen.

Crucially, the french presidential election was totally spoiled by the theme of unsecurity - perhaps in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
 
Spain is an interesting case. We still get Aznar with his fresh 2000 majority, so he pushes for Atlanticism (i.e. closeness to US & Britain over the Franco-german block) all the same, and we aren't spared the shameful image of Piqué bowing to the US president until comedians feared his neck would snap, and his arrogance, centralism and authoritarian streak grows by the minute all the same, not needing the Catalan and Basque nationalists to govern as he did in his first term.

In 2002 we get the Perejil dick measuring contest, prompted by Muhammad VI's and Aznar's dislike for each other. OTL the Bush administration intervened immediately as it need the Mediterranean cleared for a route to the Middle East. How different, if any, would a Gore administration react to that?

Then comes 2003, and 2004. Without the Irak War and the demonstrations against it, the Casablanca attacks and most importantly the Madrid train bombing attacks, I think Rajoy would pull through and win the election, but lose Aznar's majority and have to rely once again on PNV and CiU's good graces. This is important considering the coming revision of the Catalan statute of autonomy. Regarding the 2004 election itself, it would be seen as a boring affair, probably with a modest turnout, pitching Rajoy who was seen as a spineless puppet handpicked by Aznar, vs Zapatero who was seen as a weakass all too content with PSOE playing second fiddle to PP (this time without even opposition to the Irak War to make up for it).

A Rajoy presidency means no dependency law, no historical memory law and no gay marriage law (I think we speeded gay marriage laws by approving this - it was no longer something only crazy liberal Benelux and Canada did, and I remember foreign bloggers going all about how Inquisition-land could have approved it and their country not). The Catalan business would be the defining event of his presidency - however it goes. As for Zapatero, I think he'd be challenged and replaced at PSOE's helm by someone with more bite in short order (Bono? Patxi López?).* He'd past into history as the third post-González footnote after Almunia and Borrell.

Two final regional thoughts:

1) Some say that after his election Zapatero decided not to press further for an investigation of the Tamayazo scandal as a way to lower PP's attacks in his first term (to no avail in my opinion). Without Zapatero, could his replacement make this a battlehorse against a weakened PP presidency? And finally lead PSOE to victory in 2008... only to get the economic crisis exploding in his face (if Gore being president doesn't avert it, given that it was made likelier by Bush economic policy, remember).

2) While the 2002/2003 Prestige oil spill will happen and be mishandled all the same, the lesser anti-PP backlash at a national level could allow Fraga to win another term as president of Galicia in 2005, and in this case he's liable to seek reelection in 2009 - at age 87. If he wins again (and I think he'd do), he has all the cards to die in office in 2012 (OTL he did so as a senator). I can only imagine the Galician dinosaur jokes.

*Holy fuck! What about Rosa Díez?!!
 
Last edited:
Romania

At first, I thought this would never impact Romania...but I was wrong.

Basically, this guy never happens. Basescu never gets to brag about saving the kidnapped journalists from Iraq, the social-democrats never have to explain why he was hanging out with former president Iliescu.

Also, the liberals aren't shamed into cancelling their decision to pull out the troops from Iraq.

All of this might lead to Basescu losing the 2009 election to Geona, and that opens up a whole can of butterflies
 
Yes, after 9/11 Gore would still have been obliged to invade Afghanistan to oust Osama binLaden and his merry band of jihadists.

However, the Second Gulf War has largely been blamed on a Bush family feud. While I may have been proud to pack a parachute for President George Bush Senior, I do not believe that George Bush Junior was half as bright. In many ways Bush Junior looked like a puppet.

The real question is: How much longer could Saddam Hussein's family (and the Sunni, Trimurti-based Baathist Party) retain control of Iraq? How much longer could they oppose the various: Kurdish, Shiite, Christian, Turkmen, etc. minorities?
How crazy, perverse, blood-thirsty were Saddam's sons Udday and Qussay?
Even without WALLY intervention, the Baathist Party was eventually doomed to fall from power.
The question is: when?
How fast would Iraq have disintegrated into civil war after Baathists fell from power?

The Arab Spring may have been encouraged by Saddam Hussein's fall from power, but that was not the primary motivation. Rather the Arab Spring was driven by peak oil and the inter web. When oil production peaked in 2007, it started to drive up the cost of diesel fuel and fertilizer for Arab farmers, which drove up the cost of food for working-class Arabs, which pushed more of them below the poverty line. With nothing better to, poor Arabs rioted.
As the inter web and cell-phone usage expanded, they allowed Arab rabble-roosters to motivate larger rabbles.
 
Yes, after 9/11 Gore would still have been obliged to invade Afghanistan to oust Osama binLaden and his merry band of jihadists.

However, the Second Gulf War has largely been blamed on a Bush family feud. While I may have been proud to pack a parachute for President George Bush Senior, I do not believe that George Bush Junior was half as bright. In many ways Bush Junior looked like a puppet.

The real question is: How much longer could Saddam Hussein's family (and the Sunni, Trimurti-based Baathist Party) retain control of Iraq? How much longer could they oppose the various: Kurdish, Shiite, Christian, Turkmen, etc. minorities?
How crazy, perverse, blood-thirsty were Saddam's sons Udday and Qussay?
Even without WALLY intervention, the Baathist Party was eventually doomed to fall from power.
The question is: when?
How fast would Iraq have disintegrated into civil war after Baathists fell from power?

The Arab Spring may have been encouraged by Saddam Hussein's fall from power, but that was not the primary motivation. Rather the Arab Spring was driven by peak oil and the inter web. When oil production peaked in 2007, it started to drive up the cost of diesel fuel and fertilizer for Arab farmers, which drove up the cost of food for working-class Arabs, which pushed more of them below the poverty line. With nothing better to, poor Arabs rioted.
As the inter web and cell-phone usage expanded, they allowed Arab rabble-roosters to motivate larger rabbles.

In my opinion Iraq is going to be the next Syria. Both civil wars would occur side-by-side. And I have a feeling Sunnis from both countries would want to work together....
 
Afghanistan would be the main quagmire, rather than Iraq, though the rest of the world's support of the United States would be stronger and longer-lasting without Iraq to piss that down the drain...
This also means that a rapprochement with Iran would be more feasible and occur earlier, as Gore is less likely to give the "Axis of Evil" speech in the wake of Iran offering cooperation with America over Afghanistan, alienating them...

As is obvious, Blair would stay in office longer, and have a more positive reputation, which could give him more leverage in EU affairs, whether it be forming an "Atlanticist bloc" (with other European countries) to counterbalance the Franco-German axis, or directly cooperating with France and Germany on issues which they are in accord with the UK (foreign policy for the former, economics for the latter). This, along with the lack of Iraq as a unifier, plus the relative lack of "chemistry" between Schroeder and Chirac compared to Mitterrand and Kohl, would mean a weaker Franco-German axis...
Though what about Jospin and Stoiber? If that happened instead in 2002?

And maybe Tony Blair could be the 1st EU President?!:eek::confused:

I think without Iraq, Labour wouldn't be as discredited as a party, meaning that they would have more support, while the Lib Dems and SNP would have less, though there would still be the "security measures" and neoliberalism...

I think Chirac, if he still wins in 2002, would have a less positive reputation than OTL, as part of that was his opposition to the Iraq War...
Though this also means that the whole "French are cowards and suck at war" meme wouldn't be as prevalent, nor the whole "Freedom Fries" thing...

Same with Canada and Jean Chretien, though for us I think would go similar to OTL...sponsorship scandal is still going to happen, meaning that the Conservatives are still going to take power...

Without Iraq, Russia and China would have less positive reputations, and their "whataboutism" would be less potent...At the very least, Russia wouldn't be able to rely on Iraq as an excuse for Crimea, if that happens...

Gore would be somewhat less likely to "recognize the facts on the ground" regarding Israeli settlements, meaning that Israel would be less "off the hook" and more likely to negotiate for peace agreements...

And as Tocomocho said, same-sex marriage may come about more slowly around the world, as Spain would likely still be under a PP government, meaning that they wouldn't legalize same-sex marriage, though Canada still would (that wouldn't be affected, as it came about around the same time as Spain OTL). At the very least, I think Portugal may be less likely to legalize, as they are considered to be more religious-minded than Spain is...
This would mean that other traditionally-Catholic countries, particularly in Latin America, would be less likely to legalize...
Thus, I think the meme of Catholic countries being more hostile to same-sex marriage would persist further...

The "Arab Spring" would be different, especially as the Iraq War protests served as a bit of a "test run" for that, like in Egypt...
 
In my opinion Iraq is going to be the next Syria. Both civil wars would occur side-by-side. And I have a feeling Sunnis from both countries would want to work together....
Yeah, Iraq is likely to get hit by revolts if Syria does. The problem is that the Syrian and Iraqi governments hate each other (Syria is closely aligned with Iran, whereas Saddam's Iraq obviously was not). Nor is it clear how well the Iraqis and the Sunni Islamists would get along; Saddam wasn't above making overtures towards them to preserve his power, but ultimately Baathism and Al Qaeda represent very different, mutually hostile strains of Middle Eastern politics, and both recognized it. The Kurds in the north will do their own thing (possibly taking advantage of any chaos to expand), which will quietly freak Turkey out.

On the other hand, ISIS seems much less likely to rise to prominence without the radicalization of the Iraq War and the insurgency; many of the prominent leaders cut their teeth in that conflict.
 
fighting just one war, the U.S., Britain, and other allies will most probably do a significantly better job of rebuilding Afghanistan.

The parties in power which support military intervention, such as Spain, will face less opposition, at least regarding international policy. Elections will likely play out much more over domestic issues.

Smaller peace movements in almost all countries, but perhaps more focused. I mean, the peace movements will still probably bring up areas which should be looked at.
 
We might see more western intervention in the Arab Spring analogue. Perhaps if Syria descends into civil war in a similar fashion, forex. This might not be a good thing, mind.
 
With Gore as President
things in Iraq would quite different today
Saddam Hussein Clan would remain in Power while Iraq is under Strict Sanctions by US, Europe and UN.
and Saddam Hussein will crush any form of Opposition like always.

I wonder if there is NO Hussein al-Qaeda link allegations, would CIA "Renew" there connection to Saddam Hussein in order to crush al-Qaeda and Will take Hussein the opportunity ?
remember Saddam Hussein had close tie with CIA and they help into Power !

in 2010 the Arab Spring will happen also in Iraq and will be a bloody battle, even more bloodier as in Syria !
but with quite important factor: No Rise if Islamic State in Iraq !
why ? simple Islamic State get allot logistic help and Weapons from former entourage and Generals of deceased Saddam Hussein,
in Iraq were Saddam Hussein is alive, IS would consider same "vermin" like the Opposition...
so would that be end of IS ? sadly like any vermin is will rise somewhere else.
Jemen is al-Qaeda and Pakistan is Taliban country, so more likely IS would rise instead in Sahara between Mail, Algeria, Libya.
but it would missing allot of Logistic they got in Iraq, so intervention of French or US special force could destroy them on long therm.

SchroederZigarre(1).jpg

Gerhard "Napoleon" Schroeder was major disaster for Social Democratic Germany
His neo Liberal Ideas and anti-social Reforms, destroy social order and entire professions.
and destroy the reputation of german Social Democratic party, today there are clone of ruling Christian Democratic Party.
With abandon minimum wage, Harz Reforms with one euro job and Over regulated employment agency (with Belgium bureaucracy mayhem)
Like Harz V stranded were forced to liquidate there savings, selling there Homes, if to big and move in smaller socials Apartments or had to close there private undertaking.
the employment agency is today under Harsh critic, after Journalist discover scandal that there bureaucracy is uselessness and Harz V stranded not get a Job or Help because of bureaucracy mayhem...
Allot of German Political and Economic analyst consider Schroeder politic heir as disastrous
Today Schroeder works as Lobbyist for Russian Gasprom and is close Friend of Vladimir Putin.

why his nickname is Napoleon ?
because of his exorbitant Ego and his arrogant behave as power seeker...
Like in this legendary TV debate in 2005 were he lost election and Angela Merkel became new Chancellor
if you not understand German
in Short he Yammering about coverage of Election, declare him self As Winner and Angela Merkel as Big Looser of election
get very angry as Journalist and Christian Democratic Party disagree with him.
Then He Proclaiming him self as Winner and new Chancellor of Germany, were Madam Merkel will to eat crow, because HE dictate the condition.
There were allot of Speculation if Schroeder was megalomaniacal or just drunk on that night.
fact next morning with final result of Election, new Chancellor Angela Merkel wipe with him the floor and SHE dictated the condition...
 
Agree with post 2 mainly, no war in Ira is a lot less anti-American sentiment around the world, though Afghanistan still is costing a lot.

In 2008 the resulting increase in financial stability leads to easier subsidy and solving of the housing bubble and the recession probably hits some four years alter.

Middle east wise, Iran and the US don't go into paranoia mode but don't go into an accord on weapons. Qusay become President of Iraq and leads a partial, Assad-style rehabilitation. Arab spring doesn't happen.
 
What effects would this have on the war in Afghanistan? In OTL much of the focus of the war on terror was in Iraq. Likely, along with no Iraq war, we could see first steps towards reproachment with Iran, already be out of Afghanistan, parts of the ruins of Babylon wouldn't have been blown up for use as a US military staging base... Anything else?
 
What effects would this have on the war in Afghanistan? In OTL much of the focus of the war on terror was in Iraq. Likely, along with no Iraq war, we could see first steps towards reproachment with Iran, already be out of Afghanistan, parts of the ruins of Babylon wouldn't have been blown up for use as a US military staging base... Anything else?

one option would be more US force concentrated on Afghanistan, instead of having two fronts in middle east.
but if this had change the civil War in Afghanistan is doubtful.

The other option no further troops to Afghanistan and No Iraq war would save the US government in total $845 billion!
 
Is it possible that Iraq would have been invaded anyway, but at a later date when the next Republican comes into power? They'd probably have to be elected on the back of a feeling of insecurity and wanting to get revenge for 9/11; there could be the feeling that Gore had done too little. Hell, it might have been Iran invaded instead of Iraq. Or both
 

jahenders

Banned
Do keep in mind that, even if we don't invade Iraq, we're still going to be conducting Operations Southern and Northern Watch for several years, unless Gore just decides to cancel (or not support) the UN mandates. Among other things, that's worth considering in looking at (monetary) costs -- the Iraq war was insanely expensive, but it wasn't really a choice between $0 and $X, but between a $5-20B and $X.
 
No Iraq probably means that Blair decides to go with a referendum on joining the Euro, apparently that's what he was planning until Iraq diverted his attention. This may have led to Brown resigning which has a stack of butterflies in its own right, how the vote would have gone is anyone's guess, Blair would still have been this all conquering colossus and without the albatross of Iraq he may have won the vote though not by much.

He would have had a much bigger majority in 2005 as the Lib Dems wouldn't have done so well, he'd probably still have quit in 2007 but in much better circumstances and his successor may not have been Brown.

In addition there wouldn't have been the large scale defections from Scottish Labour to the SNP in the wake of Iraq which laid the foundation for their subsequent breakthrough, so Jack McConnell remains as First Minister after 2007.
 
Yeah, Iraq is likely to get hit by revolts if Syria does. The problem is that the Syrian and Iraqi governments hate each other (Syria is closely aligned with Iran, whereas Saddam's Iraq obviously was not). Nor is it clear how well the Iraqis and the Sunni Islamists would get along; Saddam wasn't above making overtures towards them to preserve his power, but ultimately Baathism and Al Qaeda represent very different, mutually hostile strains of Middle Eastern politics, and both recognized it. The Kurds in the north will do their own thing (possibly taking advantage of any chaos to expand), which will quietly freak Turkey out.

On the other hand, ISIS seems much less likely to rise to prominence without the radicalization of the Iraq War and the insurgency; many of the prominent leaders cut their teeth in that conflict.

Though Iraqi-Syrian relations were bad, they started to improve after the death of Hafez al-Assad.
 
Top