With no 911 I don't see the Iraq War taking place during Bush's Presidency. There was just no consensus for it, (1) even in OTL there were massive protests and public outcry, it would be even less likely with no terrorist attack to galvanize the population.
There was every galvanizing factor for Afghanistan, but Iraq?
Among Bush's people there were those telling Bush what he wanted to hear to protect their jobs, there were those telling him what he wanted to hear to get promotions, there were those telling him what he wanted to hear so that their friends could make billions in no-bid government contracts, and there were the Neo-Cons talking about "regime-change" and "establishing Jeffersonian Democracy" as if Saddam's Iraq was in WWII. Talk about fighting the last war! These idiots Rumsfeld and Cheney were fighting the last war
before the last war
BEFORE the last war! Its a wonder that Rumsfeld didn't start issuing the troops M-1 Garands and Sherman tanks!
Bush wanted to hear what he wanted to hear because in his mind Saddam Had. To. Go. My opinions on this are, I'll admit, very strong. A guy who never served, whose opponent (Gore) was ridiculed for not serving on the front lines in uniform, whose minions accused one of his opponents (McCain, 2000 GOP primary) of having a black bastard child (and cravenly refusing to even denounce the actions of said minions, much less apologize for their actions), challenge the right of a genuine war hero (Kerry, his 2004 opponent) for the right to wear the highest medals this nation had to give and he had earned...! Christ, in some ATL there's a Bill Clinton who pulled that with his 1996 GOP opponent Bob Dole, only to lose to him in a landslide.
Instead, I imagine American politics would be much more focused on the ENRON scandal, social issues like stem cell research, and the US trade deficit with China.
But, but...? Now that he's president, how can W ever go to his mother's Thanksgiving dinner unless he has Saddam's head on the turkey platter?
Indeed, with no Iraq War I think China and Russia would be the focus of American foreign policy, relations could probably be much chillier, particularly after the 2001 spy plane incident with China and during the 2007 poisoning of Ukrainian candidate Yushchenko with Russia, or during the 2006 murder of dissident Litvinenko, poisoned with radioactive polonium in the UK.
This reminds me a lot about US foreign policy in the 1960s and 70s. EVERYTHING poisoned by what was happened or just HAD happened in Vietnam. No real Third World Policy, and only the ineptitude of Brezhnev and the needs of the PLA to concentrate on domestic affairs kept things from getting worse.
The American reaction to these incidents would have been much tougher (in fact it was quite muted in OTL) and NATO would have been much more united since the Iraq War created major rifts in OTL.
Agreed.
I can imagine Russia being expelled from the G8 at some point during the 2000s and talk of a "Second Cold War" already taking shape by 2007.
IDK. It depends a lot on just how desperate Putin is to start a Second Cold War. Considering events in the last 2 years, he REALLY wants that. As in, HE wants to fight the last war over again.
Missile defense in Eastern Europe and the development of US bunker buster bombs would be at the forefront of foreign policy rather than a sideshow to the Iraq War. Nuclear bunker buster bomb development was sold to the public as something relating to the Iraq War but in fact they were a response to massive nuclear bunker building by the Russians in the 1990s. (Like the Yamantau Mountain and Kosvinsky Mountain facilities)
What's their progress now?
Politically, I can see Bush losing the 2004 elections to someone like Dick Gephardt or John Edwards, and McCain likely winning the Presidency in 2008.
John Edwards was too self-destructive, and Dick Gephardt was guaranteed to cure insomnia.
If President John Kerry is the incumbent, John McCain isn't beating him. Not with Palin on the ticket.
OTOH, the Dems were little more interested in fixing the investment firms than the Repubs during the 2008 meltdown, so they could get just a very slightly less amount of the blame than Bush did.
OTOH again, you could expect Kerry to be a lot less asleep at the switch than W, even if the economy isn't his thing.
Of course, you could argue McCain may not get the 2008 GOP nomination. Or he may not choose Palin. Or he may, if it looks like he needs more help against an incumbent. Plus Kerry negates McCain's war hero status. A HUGE butterfly will be how the economic meltdown occurs. The later it is, the better chance Kerry has of holding on. If it happens six months earlier, McCain can start measuring the Oval Office for new drapes.
