No invasion of Iraq

Depends, really. If Dubya still invades Afghanistan, then without Iraq he has the potential to leave a more positive legacy - the troops who would have gone to Iraq can be used for a comprehensive rooting-out of the Taliban and other rebel groups.
 
Depends, really. If Dubya still invades Afghanistan, then without Iraq he has the potential to leave a more positive legacy - the troops who would have gone to Iraq can be used for a comprehensive rooting-out of the Taliban and other rebel groups.

true, i think his legacy would be more positive. No Iraq means no billions of dollars spent to fight the war and maintain Iraq so it helps economically thus maybe averting the financial crash.
 
true, i think his legacy would be more positive. No Iraq means no billions of dollars spent to fight the war and maintain Iraq so it helps economically thus maybe averting the financial crash.

There is still collapse but not so serious as in OTL. And probably there is still democratic president on '09.

But Middle East is seemingly more stable leastly so long when Saddam Hussein is alive. There probably wouldn't be Arab Spring and so not Syrian Civil War nor ISIS.

But bigger question is what will happen for Iraq when Saddam Hussein dies. He would be 78 on 2015. So there is question about his successor. Situation might goes nasty if Uday or Qusay Hussein gets power. So might be that Iraqi Civil War is unavoidable.
 
Depends, really. If Dubya still invades Afghanistan, then without Iraq he has the potential to leave a more positive legacy - the troops who would have gone to Iraq can be used for a comprehensive rooting-out of the Taliban and other rebel groups.

I disagree, the military is not a zero-sum game where resources not used in one place automatically get used elsewhere. I think Afghanistan would have gone the same course regardless of if Iraq existed or not.

I wonder what the anti-war movement would look like. There are those who are opposed to all intervention and all war, and all military deaths (some just about the American deaths, others are about any deaths). Many of the movements went with "Well, Afghanistan was obvious, but we're against Iraq because it was all lies and there was no reason other than oil and an avenge Daddy complex". Would there be a more anti-Afghan War movement?

With GWB a bit more popular (one assumes) I wonder if Obama would have beaten McCain... I personally don't think he would have beaten Hillary Clinton in the primaries to be honest in this ATL. Hillary I think still would have beaten McCain, he went too far right, farther than he needed to considering how left Obama was. Against Clinton, McCain would have to have gone even farther right to counter act that she is more centrist than Obama and even center-right on some issues of foreign relations and military, and then on economy all she'd have to do is trot out her husband and say "remember the economy we had under this guy? See what you have now? That's what 8 years of Republicans do to you" and she wins the left and center vote and McCain loses. However after 4 years I think Mitt Romney, or some other Republican, beats her in 2012. Arab Spring still happens, Khaddafi is overthrown, but I think Assad is safe after crushing what is considered a minor blimp. ISIS attempts to form with US help, but Hussein crushes it; and Kurds as well; this being one of the Republican attacks on Clinton in 2012- "McCain would have helped those rebels against Hussein and overthrew him!" Al-Qaeda probably still strong in Sudan, Yemen, sets up cells in Libya. More attention by Europe and the US on helping out and being involved in Libya as it is not overshadowed by events in Syria and Iraq.
 
Last edited:
There is still collapse but not so serious as in OTL. And probably there is still democratic president on '09.

But Middle East is seemingly more stable leastly so long when Saddam Hussein is alive. There probably wouldn't be Arab Spring and so not Syrian Civil War nor ISIS.

But bigger question is what will happen for Iraq when Saddam Hussein dies. He would be 78 on 2015. So there is question about his successor. Situation might goes nasty if Uday or Qusay Hussein gets power. So might be that Iraqi Civil War is unavoidable.

Saddam's sons will be just as brutal in keeping Iraq together as he was. Agree with democratic president in 09 maybe not Obama. I still think jihadists still were organize in the Middle East in some form to cause problems
 
Saddam's sons will be just as brutal in keeping Iraq together as he was. Agree with democratic president in 09 maybe not Obama. I still think jihadists still were organize in the Middle East in some form to cause problems

There were jihadists, but they were anti-Hussein and Hussein was anti-al Qaeda. He'll keep them busy and they won't be able to organize against Assad. Arab Spring though starts in Tunisia, it'll still occur, you can't butterfly that away. Tunisia, Libya, Lebanon, and Egypt have nothing to do with American intervention in Iraq. Syria though does, and probably had some backdoor help from Israel. It's surely not a coincidence that Israel complains that "Egypt's Mubarrak was at least not a threat and the US let him fall, meanwhile Assad in Syria is a real threat and he isn't being targeted" and then a month later Assad is in serious trouble from rebels.
 
Without the huge backlash against the Iraq War, I agree that Obama is probably not going to get elected. Clinton seems likely.
 
But Middle East is seemingly more stable leastly so long when Saddam Hussein is alive. There probably wouldn't be Arab Spring and so not Syrian Civil War nor ISIS.
I think that the Arab Spring has far more to do with the end of the cold war and the rise of the internet as a communications tool, which led to increasing dissatisfaction with the corrupt dictatorships and extreme inequality. The Syrian civil war was caused by the aforementioned problems combined with several years of drought that was badly handled by the Assad regime. In fact I think that it's arguable that the Iraq war probably delayed the Arab Spring by a few years. No Iraq war could well leas to the west being more willing to get involved in Libya and Syria, and a 2013 western involvement in Syria in support of the FSA might well almost entirely entirely butterfly Daesh to the point that they're no more than a minor Al-Qaeda off shoot.

The financial crisis still happens and is pretty much what occurred in OTL.
 
Last edited:
I think the economy would have gone down the toilet regardless of Iraq. The mortgage and housing markets were not operating in a sustainable manner and was going to crash sooner or later.

George W Bush could have avoided having people accuse him of lying about Iraqi WMDs to lead us into a pointless war, but he would still take the blame for the economy.
 
I think the economy would have gone down the toilet regardless of Iraq. The mortgage and housing markets were not operating in a sustainable manner and was going to crash sooner or later.

George W Bush could have avoided having people accuse him of lying about Iraqi WMDs to lead us into a pointless war, but he would still take the blame for the economy.

That is a good point. A change in direction though, without Iraq would Bin Laden make Afghanistan their sole target and make it the quagmire that Iraq was in 05-06?
 
Or we could see Saddam supporting some alternate version of AQ/ISIS and Bush gets criticized for not protecting us.

You never know what happens when you change things (not that I am saying the war was good, merely that the absence is not necessarily better)
 
Or we could see Saddam supporting some alternate version of AQ/ISIS and Bush gets criticized for not protecting us.
Saddam was always seen as a bit of a bulwark against political Islam, so I'm not sure how likely it would for him to support Al-Qaeda or Daesh. What would be interesting from an AH perspective would be what happens in an Iraqi Arab Spring under Saddam. It could potentially end up with western forces intervening in Libya, Iraq and Syria and probably a bigger quagmire than Afghanistan and Iraq ever were.
You never know what happens when you change things (not that I am saying the war was good, merely that the absence is not necessarily better)
Quite.
 
Bush's presidency is seen a little bit better than OTL, but not much. I don't see him handling Afghanistan any differently, Katrina still goes as OTL, and the economy still tanks, maybe not as bad as it did, but still bad. Although with no Iraq war, Hillary is probably the nominee and defeats McCain in 2008.

The success of her Presidency, I think, will depend on if the Arab Spring happens and how she responds to it, keep in mind it will be different with Saddam in power. If she starts a quagmire of a war in Iraq, Syria, or Libya, she's a one term President, if not it will depend on the economy, in which case she'll probably win, as I don't see her handling the economy or congress any worse than Obama.
 

jahenders

Banned
I agree that Afghanistan would have gone the same. The powers that be wouldn't approve massive build-ups there just because there wasn't ground combat in Iraq.

Certainly GWB would be more popular and Republicans in general. That really might have played out to give Hillary the Dem nomination and then a McCain vs Hillary duel.

I disagree, the military is not a zero-sum game where resources not used in one place automatically get used elsewhere. I think Afghanistan would have gone the same course regardless of if Iraq existed or not.

I wonder what the anti-war movement would look like. There are those who are opposed to all intervention and all war, and all military deaths (some just about the American deaths, others are about any deaths). Many of the movements went with "Well, Afghanistan was obvious, but we're against Iraq because it was all lies and there was no reason other than oil and an avenge Daddy complex". Would there be a more anti-Afghan War movement?

With GWB a bit more popular (one assumes) I wonder if Obama would have beaten McCain... I personally don't think he would have beaten Hillary Clinton in the primaries to be honest in this ATL. Hillary I think still would have beaten McCain, he went too far right, farther than he needed to considering how left Obama was. Against Clinton, McCain would have to have gone even farther right to counter act that she is more centrist than Obama and even center-right on some issues of foreign relations and military, and then on economy all she'd have to do is trot out her husband and say "remember the economy we had under this guy? See what you have now? That's what 8 years of Republicans do to you" and she wins the left and center vote and McCain loses. However after 4 years I think Mitt Romney, or some other Republican, beats her in 2012. Arab Spring still happens, Khaddafi is overthrown, but I think Assad is safe after crushing what is considered a minor blimp. ISIS attempts to form with US help, but Hussein crushes it; and Kurds as well; this being one of the Republican attacks on Clinton in 2012- "McCain would have helped those rebels against Hussein and overthrew him!" Al-Qaeda probably still strong in Sudan, Yemen, sets up cells in Libya. More attention by Europe and the US on helping out and being involved in Libya as it is not overshadowed by events in Syria and Iraq.
 
Around September 2001, there were reports surfacing of very great financial improprieties with the DOD, so that may come back up with no Iraq distraction. Rumsfeld and Cheney may be out. The Dubai Ports deal goes through. I don't think the Democrat and Republican rift will be as great as OTL, so the libertarian movements won't be as populous as they are today either.

The depression staring in 2007 still happens, and it's just as bad, unless someone who was otherwise distracted/dead notices and can apply preemptive measures.

Gaddafi stopped Libya's NBC work after the invasion of Iraq, so that still continues. I'm not sure his government would have fallen without greater foreign intervention. The Tunisian Revolution still happens, and probably also Egypt's. Maybe a secularist replaces Erdogan as Prime Minister of Turkey. Iraq is a time bomb waiting until Saddam is replaced by his insane sons.

Maybe NASA gets a bigger budget, but from what I understand Ares I will still be bogged down by NASA's management of its second stage design. Interestingly, the first stage designers, had worked out a solution by using the Ariane 5's main stage, Vulcain, for the Ares I's secondary stage.

Maybe more F-22s are purchased. The Navy might be used more in Eastern Africa, we might see another intervention in Somalia.

North Korea is anybody's guess.
 
As everyone says, financial crash still happens (but might not be as bad in the US with less debt), might have a positive impact on Afghanistan and get more anti-war talk about Afghanistan earlier, Democrats still win in 2009 but might not be Obama, and the US is less polarised.

UK wise, Tony Blair has a much better legacy. (This helps Bush, who will still be chums with him; he's not just an ally but a credible one, less seen as a "poodle") He'll still leave in his third term but I'm 50/50 on:

a) Brown's going to look worse coming after a no-Iraq Blair and presiding over a financial crash that he'll get blamed for

b) Brown is running a Labour government that isn't as unpopular and is better able to sell his response to the crash & play the "don't you want stability in tiough times?" card

And I'm with Pseudo on this:

In fact I think that it's arguable that the Iraq war probably delayed the Arab Spring by a few years.

No Iraq War means there's less chance a Middle Eastern dictator can go "look at the Americans, you don't want that hear, rally around the flag". (That affects Ahmadinejad too) There's less of a distraction. That would quite likely get involvement in the inevitable Syrian conflict too, and may get peacekeepers in Libya post-revolution (I say "may" because Afghanistan is still ongoing and nations may think "yeah I'm not doing two of these"). That would most likely have a beneficial effect and leave Libya in better shape, though it would also cost a lot of money and involve some dirty dealings, maybe have dead foreign soldiers too, so ITTL people might consider it a mistake and Libya would've been better off without it.

That said, if Saddam's still alive when TTL's Arab Spring kicks off, he's going to do the same as Assad and Gaddafi so I'm wondering if

a) Syria gets as much attention in the western world as old enemies Iraq and Libya

b) Western intervention is crapper if split between between Libya and Iraq
 
Top