WI Bush doesn't invade Iraq in 2003?

This has probably been done before, but I want to really try to isolate the effects.

The POD is that everything happens IOTL up until 2003, except to everyone's surprise, Bush was trying to pressure Hussein into letting the inspectors back after all. No invasion.

There was a buildup of military forces in Kuwait in Jan-Feb 2003 that really couldn't be sustained there for a long period of time, so a partial withdrawal happens, very quietly.

An alternate or supplementary POD is that they really want to do the northern attack from Turkey after all, but realize that this is not going to happen and more work is needed to get Turkish approval.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
2003 or sometime down the line, Iraq was going to be a problem. It could and should have been handled differently, but Saddam was indeed turning it into a terror state, and was still pretending to have nukes, even when he really did not. His WMDs were chemical weapons, not nukes, but he liked to boast otherwise. That won't go unanswered.

Remember that Bush ran on a realist platform of limited foreign engagement in 2000, weary of Clinton's engagement in the Balkans and in Africa. Butterfly away 9/11 and this will remain. The people in his administration may have held deeply interventionist views, but Bush himself resisted their later calls for action against Iran and resisted calls to strike inside Iraq before late 2002. There was a point in time where this all changed, and nobody is really certain when it was.
 
I would think an earlier POD would be required. Some who worked in the administration had said that Bush was determined from day one to invade Iraq. Not to mention he filled his cabinet with people who urged Clinton to go to war for years and were intent on going to war with Iraq during a Bush administration.
 
I would think an earlier POD would be required. Some who worked in the administration had said that Bush was determined from day one to invade Iraq. Not to mention he filled his cabinet with people who urged Clinton to go to war for years and were intent on going to war with Iraq during a Bush administration.

No, not at all, Bush was the least interested in going to war of his top advisers other then Powell and he wasn't selecting advisers based on how hawkish they were on toppling Saddam, nearly the entire foreign policy establishment was hawkish on toppling Saddam by the early 00s with only a very few exceptions.

Saddam sort of pushed the issue after 911 when other countries were trying to have good relations or at least pretending Saddam was standing up to America and violating the terms of the cease fire of the first Gulf War while being the only leader in the world to revel in the 911 attacks and call what he thought was Bush's bluff.

You can delay war if Saddam acts like Gaddafi and Iran after 911 which for Saddam is out of character, but preventing war period is a hard thing as we were bombing Iraq constantly in the 90s and early 00s and increasingly the public was coming ever closer to accept what the Pentagon and the political class thought toppling Saddam would take which was at the time several hundred American lives and several weeks of war.

As long as Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire, continued radicalizing his state and the public, political class and Pentagon belief was they could finish this with Saddam with a few hundred casualties it was going to happen eventually.

Before Bush came into office 52% of Americans supported a second invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam. In October 2001 in no small part due to Saddam's own response to the attacks 80% of Americans supported a ground war to topple him. A war in 2001 would have ironically been been much more popular and gone better militarily and politically with the US public and Europe then the one that came after a year and a half of Bush equivocating on the matter.
 
Last edited:
2003 or sometime down the line, Iraq was going to be a problem. It could and should have been handled differently, but Saddam was indeed turning it into a terror state, and was still pretending to have nukes, even when he really did not. His WMDs were chemical weapons, not nukes, but he liked to boast otherwise. That won't go unanswered.

Remember that Bush ran on a realist platform of limited foreign engagement in 2000, weary of Clinton's engagement in the Balkans and in Africa. Butterfly away 9/11 and this will remain. The people in his administration may have held deeply interventionist views, but Bush himself resisted their later calls for action against Iran and resisted calls to strike inside Iraq before late 2002. There was a point in time where this all changed, and nobody is really certain when it was.

Bush only resisted those "later calls" when it was his 2nd term and his world was already in flames.

That turning point was late 2001. I forget which Frontline episode it was that explained the exact timeline so well (Bush's War probably), but basically there was a tug-o-war between Powell and the various Neocons about a month after 9/11. iirc they actually had to convince Cheney first (remember his defense of not ousting Saddam earlier - 9/11 changed him more than ANYONE), then Bush. By December, Powell was already seeing his access to the POTUS curtailed and he knew he lost. Cue "Axis of Evil" State of the Union. I remember the switch to talking about Iraq felt very strange and alarmingly abrupt. Nothing had actually changed with Iraq. But you'd never know that from the relentless, unprecedented fear-mongering campaign they were beginning.

Like imagine if you woke up tomorrow and saw White House operatives reciting talking points about North Korea's brutality and violations of international law during every media appearance. And you're like "where the hell did this come from?".

Once Cheney & Bush were sold, invasion of Iraq became a metaphysical certitude, public opinion and congress be damned. Only 3 things I can see butterflying it in 2002: 1) a really hostile British PM, 2) some incredibly dramatic behind-the-scenes confrontation that alienates Powell enough for him to resign and loudly denounce the invasion, 3) Second Battle of Yeonpyeong escalates into the 2nd Korean War. The first two are basically ASB......as for the last one........well..............fuck it, you're probably better off with OTL. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
No, not at all, Bush was the least interested in going to war

lol sure

I would think an earlier POD would be required. Some who worked in the administration had said that Bush was determined from day one to invade Iraq.

Suskind said O'Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.

"There are memos," Suskind told the network. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"

Suskind cited a Pentagon document titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq."

In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting asked why Iraq should be invaded.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" O'Neill said.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

The idea that Bush "never made up his mind" to invade Iraq until 2003 is imho the most risible assertion that him and his thimble-full of apologists still cling to.

nearly the entire foreign policy establishment was hawkish on toppling Saddam by the early 00s with only a very few exceptions.

And after 9/11, they made damn sure those exceptions were few.

"According to insiders, Rhode worked with Feith to purge career Defense officials who weren't sufficiently enthusiastic about the muscular anti-Iraq crusade that Wolfowitz and Feith wanted."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/lie-factory
 

Read Bob Woodward take on the run up to war. Bush wanted to take out Saddam since well before he ever came into office, but there is a huge line between that and invade and occupy Iraq. You can't seem to tell the difference, but there was quite a significant view that an Operation Desert Fox on steroids which Clinton was thinking about doing which there was some hopes in the Pentagon would have made Iraq ripe for a coup. Obviously, they and Bush also looked at a decapitation strike taking out the top leaders.

Removing Saddam was not a bad thing as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were dying under his reign and he was trying to exterminate the marsh Arabs and mass graves were being dug silently all the time to deal with families and tribes to keep order, but in the en he was creating the conditions in his country through his Faith Movement that would foster one generation of genocidal monsters after another and both since have been interested in war on the West.

Its how regime change occurred that discredited it. We either needed a hard occupation or we needed to retain the various security organs of the Iraqi state for awhile and lets face it some of them were terror organs. We did neither and we had an enemy in Zarqawi who knew how to exploit our mistakes and the cleavages in Iraqi society. Getting rid of Saddam was a great idea for all mankind, but breaking the Iraqi state was a terrible idea.
 
The first effect of this is that the Taliban government in Afghanistan is permanently destroyed. American occupation there decreases dramatically in the timeframe. It's even very possible the more key leaders of Al-Qaeda are found and defeated much sooner than OTL.

The global economy will still go through a recession because of Bush's policies. It won't be as severe though. This recession is the major catalyst for the Arab Spring to still take place. That will happen with armed revolt likely happening in Iraq just the same as Syria or Libya now. When this happens, I completely see the United States enabling some sort of military action in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power as it did Gaddafi. Ever since the Iraqi led assassination attempt on George H.W. Bush it has been US policy to seek a removal of the Hussein regime with another one. There will be no direct invasion, but intervention is probably inevitable.

The no-fly zone will have stayed in power throughout the Bush years. Probably now Bush himself as by the time the Arab Spring begins, his successor will be in office, there will be armed intervention by the Americans. Once rebels emerge to oppose Saddam in Iraq, there will be an arming of these groups as the US loves to do. Air strikes may be called upon to eliminate Iraqi forces on the grounds of genocide. Saddam will be removed eventually. As stated above, the American people and international community will also be much more supportive of the intervention than OTL under these circumstances instead of an invasion.

Whatever type of regime succeeds Saddam, will be pestered by the United States and West to do the weapons inspections finally. Eventually it will be discovered as OTL that there never were any stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. The sanctions will be lifted anyway once the new regime is in power in Baghdad.
Iraq could split up now as OTL, who knows. I do believe that with America able to take care of Al-Qaeda more, there is much less of a threat that a branch will emerge in Iraq or other parts of the Middle East. That doesn't mean there won't be extremist groups, it will be just more less powerful.
 
Bush wanted to take out Saddam since well before he ever came into office, but there is a huge line between that and invade and occupy Iraq. You can't seem to tell the difference

I can tell the difference, thank you very much.

Who were these mythical unicorn Neo-Cons that wanted to topple Saddam WITHOUT invading Iraq and rebuilding it into this happy Western Democracy vassal state of the U.S? (WITH A FLAT TAX! ZOMG! <3) I remember hearing about the "Desert Fox on steroids" idea before the war - it was dismissed in the press as a risky gamble at best and a fatal underestimation of the enemy at worst. I find it very hard to believe that Bush would have ever taken it seriously as an option. I'm sure you remember the legendary lengths Saddam went to with his body doubles and dummy palaces with fully prepared meals; a decapitation strike was never gonna "fix" things.

Please spare me the litany of sins Saddam committed, as if this was a humanitarian exercise of Paul Wolfowitz's concern for his fellow man.

The Neo-Cons saw Saddam as a means to an end, the perfect foil for their budding New American Century. No shit he was evil and his removal - in a complete vacuum - would be this wonderful glorious moment in human history. But this didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened after they obfuscated and cherry picked and bullshitted the public for an entire year, all whilst promising nothing but sunshine and rainbows along the way. Cost? What cost? The Iraqi oil will pay for everything silly. What a horrible crime and abuse of our democracy in of itself. And THEN after the dog catches the car they completely fuck it up with what Tom Ricks cheerfully refers to as "the worst war plan in American history".

That's the great irony here - Saddam should by all rights be remembered as one of the most repulsive dictators of the 20th century, which is obviously saying something. Instead, Saddam will be remembered as a brutal tyrant..........who nevertheless was able to manage the feat of keeping his sectarian powder keg of a "country" in one piece. Why, I even hear he made the trains run on time!
 
"a really hostile British PM"

Actually that was my original idea for a WI related to this, but I decided to wait until after the Chilcott report came out. And it may be better to get what happens with no invasion at all discussed first.

Even though this is more about whether there was any way the US wouldn't invade, this is still a good discussion.
 

jahenders

Banned
The first effect of this is that the Taliban government in Afghanistan is permanently destroyed. American occupation there decreases dramatically in the timeframe. It's even very possible the more key leaders of Al-Qaeda are found and defeated much sooner than OTL.

The global economy will still go through a recession because of Bush's policies. It won't be as severe though. This recession is the major catalyst for the Arab Spring to still take place. That will happen with armed revolt likely happening in Iraq just the same as Syria or Libya now. When this happens, I completely see the United States enabling some sort of military action in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power as it did Gaddafi. Ever since the Iraqi led assassination attempt on George H.W. Bush it has been US policy to seek a removal of the Hussein regime with another one. There will be no direct invasion, but intervention is probably inevitable.

First, whether or not we invade Iraq, that does NOT necessarily mean a lot more force in Afghanistan. The numbers there (at the time) were what was deemed necessary. Just because we don't send troops into Iraq, that doesn't mean we're going to send them to Afghanistan. If there ARE more US troops in Afghanistan, that might net a few more Taliban/Al Qaeda, but there's no reason to assume that we'd necessarily get Osama or other kingpins (many of whom were already across the border in 'friendly' Pakistan)

The global recession had essentially ZERO to do with any policy of Bush. One, it was international in scope, effect, AND causes. Second, within the US, the issues were a huge housing bubble, caused largely by (Democrat) government policies and lack of oversight from DECADES before, exascerbated by bank deregulation (backed by some Republicans and some Democrats) from a decade or two before.
 
The global recession had essentially ZERO to do with any policy of Bush. One, it was international in scope, effect, AND causes. Second, within the US, the issues were a huge housing bubble, caused largely by (Democrat) government policies and lack of oversight from DECADES before, exascerbated by bank deregulation (backed by some Republicans and some Democrats) from a decade or two before.

Bush deregulated too. Republicans did back it in the House and Senate obviously too though. Yes other nations had their own contributions to the cause such as European countries going into debt with social programs and China over its own real estate bubble. There was a global real estate bubble though not just in the United States. All of the conditions building to the global economic downturn were similar throughout the globe. The economic downturn in America though with it being the largest global economy will be a large catalyst for it though.
 
What are the possibilities of an Iraqi military coup occuring before the invasion and giving into the American demands before the outbreak of war?

What are the possibilities that this leads to somesort of democractic Iraq without an invasion by the USA?
 
What are the possibilities of an Iraqi military coup occuring before the invasion and giving into the American demands before the outbreak of war?

What are the possibilities that this leads to somesort of democractic Iraq without an invasion by the USA?

Virtually none. Saddam had it fixed so a cou couldn't remove him.
 

jahenders

Banned
Bush deregulated too. Republicans did back it in the House and Senate obviously too though. Yes other nations had their own contributions to the cause such as European countries going into debt with social programs and China over its own real estate bubble. There was a global real estate bubble though not just in the United States. All of the conditions building to the global economic downturn were similar throughout the globe. The economic downturn in America though with it being the largest global economy will be a large catalyst for it though.

Bush did support some deregulation. However the biggest deregulation occurred in the 80s and 90s WITH BROAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT and multiple changes were signed and supported by Bill Clinton (so saying that Republicans did it is disingenuous/inaccurate).

So, your assertion that "The global economy will still go through a recession because of Bush's policies" is false -- the global economy might go into recession but it's not because of Bush's policies. You COULD state that "The global economy will still go through a recession since Bush didn't prevent that," but that's like saying, "The world wound up in WWII because FDR didn't prevent it."
 
Ta
Bush did support some deregulation. However the biggest deregulation occurred in the 80s and 90s WITH BROAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT and multiple changes were signed and supported by Bill Clinton (so saying that Republicans did it is disingenuous/inaccurate).

So, your assertion that "The global economy will still go through a recession because of Bush's policies" is false -- the global economy might go into recession but it's not because of Bush's policies. You COULD state that "The global economy will still go through a recession since Bush didn't prevent that," but that's like saying, "The world wound up in WWII because FDR didn't prevent it."

Tax cuts, deregulation, lowering interest rates, emergency economic protocols, etc. all were Bush era initiatives. It wasn't only Republicans, simply mostly Republican or conservative influence. Bush policies contributed greatly to the American end of the recession. It was much worse because of the manner in which he supported it. If Gore was president a minor recession was probably likely, but with Bush he mad it the second worst economic crisis of the last century. He also made it the highest deficit since the end of World War II. His economic policy and foreign one also made energy and fuel costs the highest they had been in two decades as well, second only higher in the last century per capita to when the OPEC oil embargo happened.
 

jahenders

Banned
Ta
Tax cuts, deregulation, lowering interest rates, emergency economic protocols, etc. all were Bush era initiatives. It wasn't only Republicans, simply mostly Republican or conservative influence. Bush policies contributed greatly to the American end of the recession. It was much worse because of the manner in which he supported it. If Gore was president a minor recession was probably likely, but with Bush he mad it the second worst economic crisis of the last century. He also made it the highest deficit since the end of World War II. His economic policy and foreign one also made energy and fuel costs the highest they had been in two decades as well, second only higher in the last century per capita to when the OPEC oil embargo happened.

It's simply NOT true to say his policies "contributed greatly" to the American end of the recession. Certainly, there were some things in his era that might have contributed, but a) most of the US groundwork had been laid 10-20 years before, and b) the US part of it was only part of the picture. If Gore had been President, the recession would occur almost precisely as it did and might have been worse (with more Democrat-back programs to encourage home loans to people who were bad risks). The only difference might have been the focus and timing of the response. Gore would likely have done all of the same guarantees/bailout that Bush supported, but would push for more bailouts in the auto industry and more spending overall.
 
It's simply NOT true to say his policies "contributed greatly" to the American end of the recession. Certainly, there were some things in his era that might have contributed, but a) most of the US groundwork had been laid 10-20 years before, and b) the US part of it was only part of the picture. If Gore had been President, the recession would occur almost precisely as it did and might have been worse (with more Democrat-back programs to encourage home loans to people who were bad risks). The only difference might have been the focus and timing of the response. Gore would likely have done all of the same guarantees/bailout that Bush supported, but would push for more bailouts in the auto industry and more spending overall.

Bush took the policies of Democrats including Clinton's housing program and his policies allowed them to blow up like a balloon. Some of the groundwork was set by others, but also it was his administration that inflated the problems on an unimaginable scale.
 
Bush only resisted those "later calls" when it was his 2nd term and his world was already in flames.

That turning point was late 2001. I forget which Frontline episode it was that explained the exact timeline so well (Bush's War probably), but basically there was a tug-o-war between Powell and the various Neocons about a month after 9/11. iirc they actually had to convince Cheney first (remember his defense of not ousting Saddam earlier - 9/11 changed him more than ANYONE), then Bush. By December, Powell was already seeing his access to the POTUS curtailed and he knew he lost. Cue "Axis of Evil" State of the Union. I remember the switch to talking about Iraq felt very strange and alarmingly abrupt. Nothing had actually changed with Iraq. But you'd never know that from the relentless, unprecedented fear-mongering campaign they were beginning.

Like imagine if you woke up tomorrow and saw White House operatives reciting talking points about North Korea's brutality and violations of international law during every media appearance. And you're like "where the hell did this come from?".

Once Cheney & Bush were sold, invasion of Iraq became a metaphysical certitude, public opinion and congress be damned. Only 3 things I can see butterflying it in 2002: 1) a really hostile British PM, 2) some incredibly dramatic behind-the-scenes confrontation that alienates Powell enough for him to resign and loudly denounce the invasion, 3) Second Battle of Yeonpyeong escalates into the 2nd Korean War. The first two are basically ASB......as for the last one........well..............fuck it, you're probably better off with OTL. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's really interesting. Because I actually did a TL where the Second Battle of Yeonpyrong escalates into a war and detaches America from the Middle East.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/northern-limit-line.381452/
 
Top