If President George W. Bush did not invade Iraq what affect would it have on his presidency?
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.
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.
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
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.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 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.
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.Or we could see Saddam supporting some alternate version of AQ/ISIS and Bush gets criticized for not protecting us.
Quite.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)
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.
In fact I think that it's arguable that the Iraq war probably delayed the Arab Spring by a few years.