List of Presidents without the Gulf War or the Iraq War

[Deleted member 145219]

Consider the alternate Presidents in the following scenarios:

1. There is no Gulf War in 1990 - 1991, because the Bush administration deters Iraq from invading Kuwait by indicating such an act would not be tolerated.

2. There is no Iraq War in 2003, because the George W. Bush administration is unable to consolidate support in the GOP, leading to Dick Armey publicly opposing the conflict, and most Democrats who voted for the war in OTL coming out in opposition.

How does our politics look without either of these conflicts?

 

[mspence]

If there's no Gulf War, then there might be no 9-11. One of Bin Laden's excuses for attacking the US was because of American troops in Saudi Arabia during the war.

George H.W. Bush, re-elected 1993-1997

No Iraq War: George W. Bush 2001-2009. Without the war he might be a less controversial figure and win by an even larger margin than he did in 2004, especially if he is running against somebody besides Kerry, who ran as the anti-war candidate.

 

[Deleted member 145219]

If there's no Gulf War, then there might be no 9-11. One of Bin Laden's excuses for attacking the US was because of American troops in Saudi Arabia during the war.

George H.W. Bush, re-elected 1993-1997

No Iraq War: George H.W. Bush 2001-2009. Without the war he might be a less controversial figure and win by an even larger margin than he did in 2004, especially if he is running against somebody besides Kerry, who ran as the anti-war candidate.

And I do not think that George W. Bush is still reelected without the Iraq War. Domestic issues take up a bigger amount of the electorates attention.

 

[Post]

If there's no Gulf War, then there might be no 9-11. One of Bin Laden's excuses for attacking the US was because of American troops in Saudi Arabia during the war.

George H.W. Bush, re-elected 1993-1997

No Iraq War: George H.W. Bush 2001-2009. Without the war he might be a less controversial figure and win by an even larger margin than he did in 2004, especially if he is running against somebody besides Kerry, who ran as the anti-war candidate.

I'm not so sure if GHW Bush would win 1992 without the Gulf war. But if he did, the incumbent president (most likely a democrat) would win probably win 2000.

 

[Lalli]

I don't see connection between Gulf War and defeat of GHWB in '92. The war went pretty well for Americans and it was other reasons which caused loss of GHWB. Bill Clinton would still become president.

 

[Mynock]

George H.W. Bush, re-elected 1993-1997

The war did nothing but boost his popularity, how does this work?

 

[dcharles]

If there's no Gulf War, then there might be no 9-11. One of Bin Laden's excuses for attacking the US was because of American troops in Saudi Arabia during the war.

George H.W. Bush, re-elected 1993-1997

No Iraq War: George W. Bush 2001-2009. Without the war he might be a less controversial figure and win by an even larger margin than he did in 2004, especially if he is running against somebody besides Kerry, who ran as the anti-war candidate.

No way on W.

He was on such shaky ground after the election back in 2000 that he quashed investigations into Clinton's misconduct during the transition because he didn't feel like he had the political capital to make it work.

In the eight months between Feb and Sept, his approvals declined from 57 to 51, and his disapprovals climbed from 25 to 39. Not a great trend line, but consistent with his later presidency.

It's weird to say, but 9/11 saved Bush's career. Bush himself destroyed it again, but without the boost of 9/11, I think he's a sure fire one termer.

 

[Deleted member 145219]

No way on W.

He was on such shaky ground after the election back in 2000 that he quashed investigations into Clinton's misconduct during the transition because he didn't feel like he had the political capital to make it work.

In the eight months between Feb and Sept, his approvals declined from 57 to 51, and his disapprovals climbed from 25 to 39. Not a great trend line, but consistent with his later presidency.

It's weird to say, but 9/11 saved Bush's career. Bush himself destroyed it again, but without the boost of 9/11, I think he's a sure fire one termer.

Yes. I think he’s a one termer without 9/11 or Iraq. Especially if there’s no 9/11. I thought about this a little more.

 

[KingSweden24]

No Gulf War = HWBush getting waxed.

One the major reasons HW was even in the hunt in 1992 was because of the Gulf War, which rocketed his approvals into the 90s for the first half of 1991 and led to much of the Democratic bench electing not to make a run at him - he was regarded as unbeatable for a very long time and that was a thin field of semi-cranks Clinton emerged from (Moonbeam, Paul Tsongas, etc)

Sans this, the increasingly shaky 1990-93 economy becomes a problem for the general public way earlier. HW was also never exactly the first choice of movement conservatives so without the warm glow of Desert Storm a primary challenge against him could have started forming much earlier and with somebody much more potent than Pat Buchanan making the gamble.

 

[Deleted member 145219]

No Gulf War = HWBush getting waxed.

One the major reasons HW was even in the hunt in 1992 was because of the Gulf War, which rocketed his approvals into the 90s for the first half of 1991 and led to much of the Democratic bench electing not to make a run at him - he was regarded as unbeatable for a very long time and that was a thin field of semi-cranks Clinton emerged from (Moonbeam, Paul Tsongas, etc)

Sans this, the increasingly shaky 1990-93 economy becomes a problem for the general public way earlier. HW was also never exactly the first choice of movement conservatives so without the warm glow of Desert Storm a primary challenge against him could have started forming much earlier and with somebody much more potent than Pat Buchanan making the gamble.

I think no gulf war leads to bush facing a more robust challenge from Buchanan. And a stronger Democratic candidate. Both of which lead to his political creaming. The Gulf War was a lot more influential than the Iraq War.

 

[Dancing Fool]

I don't see connection between Gulf War and defeat of GHWB in '92. The war went pretty well for Americans and it was other reasons which caused loss of GHWB.

Let me advance this theory, and I was a young man in 92, so I have some personal memory:

Bush was viewed as highly competent regarding the Gulf War. And he was therefore viewed as not caring about the economy.

Because if he cared, he could solve it. It was kind of this zen thing of your greatest strength becoming your greatest weakness.

 

[Bomster]

If there's no Gulf War, then there might be no 9-11. One of Bin Laden's excuses for attacking the US was because of American troops in Saudi Arabia during the war.

George H.W. Bush, re-elected 1993-1997

No Iraq War: George W. Bush 2001-2009. Without the war he might be a less controversial figure and win by an even larger margin than he did in 2004, especially if he is running against somebody besides Kerry, who ran as the anti-war candidate.

I do not believe Poppy Bush would be re-elected. The war, if anything, briefly made him appear invincible in 1991, causing many big league Democrats like Mario Cuomo to stay out of the primaries because they thought Bush was going to be easily re-elected. Without the Gulf War we might not see Bill Clinton be the Democratic nominee. The early 90s recession would still happen regardless of the war, so Bush is going to lose.

Oh the other hand, without Iraq in 2003 I’m not sure if Baby Bush still wins re-election. On one hand he doesn’t have the benefit of being a “war-time President” (though Afghanistan is still a concern). So without that he might lose. On the other hand, Iraq wasn’t exactly universally approved of by 2004. So perhaps it’s a wash, and Bush gets re-elected anyway because of his conduct following 9/11. Hell, he might be more popular without Iraq?

 

[Deleted member 145219]

I do not believe Poppy Bush would be re-elected. The war, if anything, briefly made him appear invincible in 1991, causing many big league Democrats like Mario Cuomo to stay out of the primaries because they thought Bush was going to be easily re-elected. Without the Gulf War we might not see Bill Clinton be the Democratic nominee. The early 90s recession would still happen regardless of the war, so Bush is going to lose.

Oh the other hand, without Iraq in 2003 I’m not sure if Baby Bush still wins re-election. On one hand he doesn’t have the benefit of being a “war-time President” (though Afghanistan is still a concern). So without that he might lose. On the other hand, Iraq wasn’t exactly universally approved of by 2004. So perhaps it’s a wash, and Bush gets re-elected anyway because of his conduct following 9/11. Hell, he might be more popular without Iraq?

I have wondered if the Gulf War was what caused Cuomo not to run.

 

[KingSweden24]

I have wondered if the Gulf War was what caused Cuomo not to run.

Ostensibly, no. “Hamlet on the Hudson” waffled over budget negotiations and, one imagines, not having the fire in the belly to abandon a cushy gig in Albany and expose himself to a national campaign (he wasn’t exactly a moderate either, so high chance of being Dukakis’d)

That said, I imagine Poppy’s big numbers through most of ‘91 played a role

I think no gulf war leads to bush facing a more robust challenge from Buchanan. And a stronger Democratic candidate. Both of which lead to his political creaming. The Gulf War was a lot more influential than the Iraq War.

Most def, though I’d wager somebody more formidable than Buchanan runs that challenge

 

[Dancing Fool]

The war, if anything, briefly made him appear invincible in 1991, causing many big league Democrats like Mario Cuomo to stay out of the primaries

I think this worked out to the good fortune of the Democrats. Basically because I think Bill Clinton was a surprisingly good candidate and president, as well was surprisingly resilient.

And personally, I’m not exactly on the Mario Cuomo band wagon.

 

[Nazi Space Spy]

Ostensibly, no. “Hamlet on the Hudson” waffled over budget negotiations and, one imagines, not having the fire in the belly to abandon a cushy gig in Albany and expose himself to a national campaign (he wasn’t exactly a moderate either, so high chance of being Dukakis’d)

That said, I imagine Poppy’s big numbers through most of ‘91 played a role

Most def, though I’d wager somebody more formidable than Buchanan runs that challenge

Buchanan stood aside for Kemp in ‘88, but then Kemp flamed out. Who would be a better alternative to Bush than Uncle Pat? Carroll Campbell perhaps?

 

[KingSweden24]

Buchanan stood aside for Kemp in ‘88, but then Kemp flamed out. Who would be a better alternative to Bush than Uncle Pat? Carroll Campbell perhaps?

It’s not hard to be a better candidate than Jack Kemp - wonky reformcons rarely make good candidates compared to the hype they get from WSJ editorials (see: Ryan, Paul)

By 1992 I’m honestly not really sure. Enough Reagan-wing guys are probably sufficiently satisfied (and sufficiently disciplined) to not throw in, whereas Buchanan wasn’t an elected official and didn’t really have much to lose. Campbell is a name, certainly.

I guess I don’t so much have a specific name in mind - as with these things, that Gene Ric guy always sounds pretty great on paper! 😜

 

[Deleted member 145219]

Ostensibly, no. “Hamlet on the Hudson” waffled over budget negotiations and, one imagines, not having the fire in the belly to abandon a cushy gig in Albany and expose himself to a national campaign (he wasn’t exactly a moderate either, so high chance of being Dukakis’d)

That said, I imagine Poppy’s big numbers through most of ‘91 played a role

Most def, though I’d wager somebody more formidable than Buchanan runs that challenge

I’ve also really wondered if Cuomo wanted it. I remember listening to John Dickerson of CBS suggesting that an aspect of Cuomo’s faith informed his worldview that you do not seek power when people want you to seek it. Steve Kornacki wrote that Cuomo felt a lot of pressure to run, but himself was ambiguous. And this is where the budget impasse came into play. It’s either he didn’t want to run. Or he thought he couldn’t win.

 

[dw93]

Bush's vulnerabilities become more apparent than OTL, thus all the top Democrats (ex: Sam Nunn, Bill Bradley, Mario Cuomo, etc...) run for President and Bill Clinton doesn't get the nomination. I agree with others that said Bush might see a more serious primary challenge than he did with Buchanan's OTL, though I think he'd still get nominated and it won't be close. The Democrats win 1992 as they did OTL and they also win 1996, in fact with a Democratic President with less baggage than Clinton I dare say the Democrats would hold the Presidency through 2004, maybe even 2008 if the GOP really fumbles.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Bush looks weaker so we get a more serious dem winning 1992. Given your not changing anything else about the era probably some conservadem.

Oh well, at least they'd 1) be more socially/economically liberal than Bill clinton 2) Not Trigger the christian right the way the Clintons did OTL with their persona 3) be more competent than Clinton so we get SOMETHING even if UHC was a nonstarter in '93 and the 1994 shift of the house/senate in dixie to the gop taking 20 years.

Nunn/Graham seems like a reasonable ticket.