WI: 1993 GHW Bush assassination succeeds?

I actually thought of doing a TL along these lines, but there were just too many forking paths involved.

What if the Iraqi attempt on Bush's life after he left office had been successful? IOTL Clinton ordered retaliatory missile strikes against the Iraqi Intelligence Service just for even trying it; actually killing Bush is bound to result in something more severe. But by how much?

I figure Clinton's response will be one of three possibilities.
1. Clinton orders heavier attacks, but sticks to bombings and/or missile strikes.
2. Clinton decides that one assassination justifies another (much as a nuclear attack would justify a response in kind), and issues an Executive Order to the CIA to take out Saddam Hussein. IMHO this would be legal despite Gerald Ford's order banning assassinations, since it was done via another Executive Order. Does Iraq fall into chaos like a headless chicken, or can the Baath Party hold it together and put someone else in charge? And if so, does George W. Bush still invade Iraq later on, should he become POTUS?
3. Clinton goes the same route George W. Bush went IOTL and goes for a full-fledged invasion, followed by installation of a regime more friendly to America. Is Clinton likely to go this far? Does Iraq become just as much of a quagmire for Clinton as for GWB? Does Clinton take a horrible amount of heat for getting the US involved in this when he avoided Vietnam? (He did for sending troops elsewhere IOTL but got through it all right; ITTL he will be totally savaged over it, I think.) And how badly does this affect Clinton's sending forces into the Balkans, if he still feels a need to?

In any event, I figure the Republican Party will be in favor of severe measures (either #2 or #3) if Clinton goes for them. It was a GOP President that was killed. In the case of an invasion, when things go downhill, the GOP will turn against the war, and (irony!) be called flip-floppers for first backing the Iraq war then changing sides. Bob Dole might be the only Congressional possibility the GOP can put forth in 1996 to run against Clinton due to his war hero status. Others from Capitol Hill will have the flip-flop issue, but governors could have a shot.

GWB in 2000 (or 2004, if Dole wins) will be seen as harder to beat than OTL. I expect GWB would have a huge sympathy boost in memory of his father. Al Gore might not decide to run against him at all, preferring to wait until he can win so he isn't tainted as a loser. Who do the Democrats put up as a sacrificial lamb? For some reason I keep thinking Bruce Babbitt.

Finally, all this mess is pre-911. So what happens there? Does bin Laden still try some sort of monumental attack? Has al-Qaeda been able to make recruiting inroads among the population of Iraq? Thoughts?
 
This is Pre-Somalia/Battle Of Mogadishu/BHD so the idea of sending troops in to fight might not be so unappealing for President Clinton.

If the attempt had succeeded then there would have been a clamour to send in the Marines, so I'd suspect it'd be option 2.

Had the attempt been post Somalia it would have been a few cruise missiles thrown at Iraq and that would have been that.
 
I think eventually Clinton would first go to the UN and get support for going all-out invasion and toppling Saddam like GWB did in March 2003.
Unlike OTL, the support for all-out war would be massive but long-term impact for Middle East 1993 onwards is uncertain.

1. No White House meeting between Rabin and Arafat?
2. US - Saudi relations worsen.
3. Oil shoots to $100 Barrel by 1995?
 
IIRC the missile attack happened in June 1993, so this is after Somalia.

The missile attack was in June IOTL, but the attempt on Bush's life was in April. US troops first went to Somalia during Bush's final year of office, before Clinton took over. While I don't know about $100 a barrel by '95, oil prices will definitely increase, and gas prices too. I figure there will also be accusations of price gouging at the pump, just like the last several years IOTL.

(All of this mostly came about because I wanted to come up with a WI revolving around an ex-POTUS after he left office. And I have another one of those rattling around in my brain, too!)
 
IIRC, the assassination plot called for a bomb that would have killed dozens if not hundreds of assorted dignitaries and Kuwaiti civilians.

If so the world would have been shocked and I imagine that immediate demands would have been made on Iraq to surrender the men responsible. If Saddam refused, I'm sure Clinton would go before the Security Council and Congress, insist this was a violation of the cease-fire and ask for a declaration of war.
 
To be honest, I have trouble seeing Bill Clinton doing that.
Not impossible, but improbable I'd say. Clinton struck me more as a president that would act with the consensus of both houses and the UN rather than unilaterally, to the extent that hardline Republicans and the more right-wing news outlets would be describing him as a coward.

I could see Saudi finding a way to attack Iraq and the US supporting that with cut price munitions and kit, it would be a golden opportunity to steal a lead from the British who have traditionally held sway in the middle east.
For example - M1A1 and M2 Bradleys being sold at cost price with the US government giving the manufacturers a tax break to make it worth while.
F/A18's being unloaded on similar terms.

The Challenger 2 and Tornado & Typhoon fighters wouldn't get a look in.
 
I'd say that al least one result would be that Bill hicks would scream with such joy that GHWB wasdead that his cancer would have been instantly cured.
 
To be honest, I have trouble seeing Bill Clinton doing that.
Not impossible, but improbable I'd say. Clinton struck me more as a president that would act with the consensus of both houses and the UN rather than unilaterally, to the extent that hardline Republicans and the more right-wing news outlets would be describing him as a coward.

I could see Saudi finding a way to attack Iraq and the US supporting that with cut price munitions and kit, it would be a golden opportunity to steal a lead from the British who have traditionally held sway in the middle east.
For example - M1A1 and M2 Bradleys being sold at cost price with the US government giving the manufacturers a tax break to make it worth while.
F/A18's being unloaded on similar terms.

The Challenger 2 and Tornado & Typhoon fighters wouldn't get a look in.
That is, of course, why he ordered the UN inspectors out of Iraq to bomb them in Desert Fox and why he went into Yugoslavia with NATO. Clinton had as much use for the UN as most presidents- if they do it our way, fine. If not, then chuck 'em. Every President since Truman (with the possible exception of Carter) has acted this way.
If the Saudis go into Iraq without the Americans, I think an ex-Afghan organizer may try and get his followers in the operation and get some new recruits.
 
There's the difference though, dropping bombs isn't the same as putting boots on the ground. The former Yugoslavia, again, was part of something else, in this case NATO rather than unilateral action, (although strongly pushed for by Clinton). Even Somalia had UN backing.


Definately agree re an Arab organiser creating "The Base" for his "Journey" though.
 
Top