WI Bush doesn't invade Iraq?

Suppose Bush's intelligence isn't faulty or made up, whichever you prefer. America finds out Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction and isn't supporting Al Qaeda either. Iraq is left alone and Saddam Hussein stays in charge until today, assuming he wouldn't have died of natural causes between 2006 and 2010 anyway. In the meantime, troops that would have gone to Iraq, go to Afghanistan instead.

What happens? How does Iraq develop? Will the shitty economic situation of Saddam's regime improve and what about Iran? Will Ahmadinejad come to power there? How will the economic situation in the world be and of course the political situation in the US itself? A Hillary Clinton presidency after Bush is gone perhaps (if the Democrats still manage to win the elections in 2008).

I apologize if there are already threads on this, but the search function is rather shitty.
 
Well, it's likely Ahmedinejad would be out of power. Afghanistan would be more secure, though not out of the woods.
The US would still try to keep the sanctions, most likely. Of course, with no pressure for an Iraq resolution, perhaps Paul Wellstone would run in 2004...
(Obama would likely be butterflied out, since he rose to relative prominence in part thanks to his opposition to Iraq.)
 
Once Saddam thought that the heat was off, he would have started up his WMD program again. This in turn would have provided a impetus for Iran, not to mention Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Likely we have to invade around 2006-7 anyway.
 
Once Saddam thought that the heat was off, he would have started up his WMD program again. This in turn would have provided a impetus for Iran, not to mention Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Likely we have to invade around 2006-7 anyway.

I don't think an Iraqi invasion is an absolute certainty. I see it playing out like this. We invade Afghanistan as planned and Bin Laden flees over the mountains to Pakistan. We follow and in turn destablize Pakistan like we did in Iraq. As for what happens to Saddam. I believe he continues to be internationally isolated and is kept in relative check by continuing sanctions and aid to Saudi Arabia.

As much as I would love a Wellstone Presidency I think he is too liberal for that to work out in 2004. If the plane crash doesn't happen and my state is spared Norm Coleman so much the better. I could see him running in '08 (i don't know how old he would be) I just don't think Bush would get voted out in '04 with military ops in Afghanistan and most likely Pakistan. I agree I think Obama is still the Jr. Senator from Illinios

As for Ahmadenijad, I know little about Iranian politics but he I know he is extremely popular with the Mullah Council which decides who can run for President and is obvious in these previous elections they are more than willing to let him fix it.

Just some food for thought.
 
I think the banking and housing crisis were a long time coming. I think if anything we would have more money to use to fix the systemic problems that exist but would lack the politcal will just like in OTL. If we follow my scenario and we are involved in Pakistan like were in Laos and Cambodia then we are going to be throwing money down a hole just like we did in Iraq for years.
 
Not to start a flame war but wasn't Bush keen even pre-9/11 to have a crack at Saddam?

I've wondered whether given a different Republican POTUS or different circumstances America might have pressured Iraq to pull a Qaddafi during an Alt War on Terror. Saddam was too compromised and a psycho along Mao lines but would it be that hard for an Administration not set on crushing Iraq to orchestrate a coup and install a more pliable Baathist Premier?

Given the Islamist focus of the uber manhunt, surely some must have seen Iraq as a possible counter-weight to Iran? Even dare I say a Second Iran-Iraq War to distract Tehran from Afghanistan
 

Germaniac

Donor
A second Iran Iraq war would very very interesting. Ironic because we would wholeheartedly support iraq, or just neither.
 
Once Saddam thought that the heat was off, he would have started up his WMD program again. This in turn would have provided a impetus for Iran, not to mention Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Likely we have to invade around 2006-7 anyway.
By your logic, we should have invaded North Korea in 2006 too.
 

Typo

Banned
But North Korea doensn't have oil....

That been said, those type of posts usually reveals the poster's political orientation very quickly
 
Would the Iranians be as touchy and belligerent as they are now? Maybe if the Americans tried to keep them supportive of their actions in the Middle East if they had kept the "war on terror" limited to Afghanistan
 

boredatwork

Banned
SNIP
We invade Afghanistan as planned and Bin Laden flees over the mountains to Pakistan. We follow and in turn destablize Pakistan like we did in Iraq. As for what happens to Saddam. I believe he continues to be internationally isolated and is kept in relative check by continuing sanctions and aid to Saudi Arabia.
SNIP.

Some problems:

1. Even in 2003, Pakistan already had nukes - we're not going to invade a nuclear armed country, particularly not one that has well over twice as much manpower on hand as we do.

2. What sanctions? They were falling apart even before Bush came into office. The idea that they would remain in place for any indefinite period is hard to credit.

3. This scenario would require the US to maintain for an indefinite time a presence in force in both Saudi Arabia and Turkey - not sure how plausible that is, as none of the three parties to such an arrangement was terribly thrilled by the idea.

4. As a follow on to the above - if you think the 'arab street' wase incensed by 'Crusaders' running around the capital of the former Caliphate, imagine how happy it would be with the idea of an indefinite 'Crusader' presence in the land of the two mosques.
 
People would complain about us not doing anything about Saddam, as he had been sufficiently elevated to "international boogeyman" status throughout the 90's, or claim that the intelligence (that wasn't faulty in this ATL) was faulty. We ribbed Hans Blix and other weapons inspectors who went in there for less.

Democrats wouldn't have much to use against Bush in 2004, besides MAYBE the economic situation. Iraq was kinda their big sticking point. So I still see Bush winning in '04, probably in an even BIGGER landslide victory than in OTL. I mean, shit... what would Kerry (or whoever the Dems would throw at him) have to use against him??? The tasteless 9/11 Truthers??? The 2000 election??? The economy wasn't in the tank at that point, so I really don't see what they could've used as a good platform. Specially since they FAILED in OTL WITH IRAQ anyway...

I doubt they'd throw Hillary at Bush, she wasn't in the mood for a presidential bid at that point.

So no annoying protesters (outside of 9/11 Truthers and other such drivel), Bush wins hands down in '04, and possibly some better (or at least considerably more mellow) relations between both parties.

Oh and Michael Moore would have to go find something else to do with his time besides obsess over Bush like some misguided stalker.
 
People would complain about us not doing anything about Saddam, as he had been sufficiently elevated to "international boogeyman" status throughout the 90's, or claim that the intelligence (that wasn't faulty in this ATL) was faulty. We ribbed Hans Blix and other weapons inspectors who went in there for less.

Democrats wouldn't have much to use against Bush in 2004, besides MAYBE the economic situation. Iraq was kinda their big sticking point. So I still see Bush winning in '04, probably in an even BIGGER landslide victory than in OTL. I mean, shit... what would Kerry (or whoever the Dems would throw at him) have to use against him??? The tasteless 9/11 Truthers??? The 2000 election??? The economy wasn't in the tank at that point, so I really don't see what they could've used as a good platform. Specially since they FAILED in OTL WITH IRAQ anyway...

I doubt they'd throw Hillary at Bush, she wasn't in the mood for a presidential bid at that point.

So no annoying protesters (outside of 9/11 Truthers and other such drivel), Bush wins hands down in '04, and possibly some better (or at least considerably more mellow) relations between both parties.

Oh and Michael Moore would have to go find something else to do with his time besides obsess over Bush like some misguided stalker.

So, in other words, Bush wouldn't be seen as the most idiotic president in American history? As for Saddam, I don't think anyone would care besides Iran and perhaps some other neighbouring countries. Iraq was pretty isolated as it was.

EDIT: I never understood why you Americans didn't get rid of that moron Bush in 2004 when you had the chance.
 
Though I'm not an American, Kerry wasn't so much better (disclaimer: I found Bush an OK POTUS). If he'd won in 2004, then the economy would've entered the recession on the Democrats' watch, there would now be a Republican President, and Obama and Clinton would be the junior senators from IL and NY respectively.
 
So, in other words, Bush wouldn't be seen as the most idiotic president in American history? As for Saddam, I don't think anyone would care besides Iran and perhaps some other neighbouring countries. Iraq was pretty isolated as it was.

Probably. Sticking to Af-Pak and internal affairs would make Bush merely reviled on the left and possibly considered a bad or okay president overall. I personally would dislike him, but then I AM part of the left, so that's not surprising. Staying out of Iraq might make the economy a little better in the mid-decade, but that might lead to an earlier crash, say 07-08 instead of 08-09 as the focal point. I don't think he'd be a particularly popular President after he left, but neither would he be particularly disliked; probably more like Coolidge than Herbert Hoover.

One way to help Bush's Presidency out is to pick someone other than Cheney out as VP. The guy was a crappy Defense Secretary back in the early '90s, too; not sure why on Earth he got the VP ticket. Anyone have any idea of who might have been good? Colin Powell looks interesting. Regardless, there is at least a stream of opinion which considers Cheney responsible for a lot of the shadier and more unpleasant behavior undertaken by the Bush White House (including the war with Iraq); if this is even partially true, then eliminating him may be quite helpful.
 
So, in other words, Bush wouldn't be seen as the most idiotic president in American history? As for Saddam, I don't think anyone would care besides Iran and perhaps some other neighbouring countries. Iraq was pretty isolated as it was.

EDIT: I never understood why you Americans didn't get rid of that moron Bush in 2004 when you had the chance.

geez... little harsh much? What is this? The Chat section??? :p:rolleyes:

Oh I'm sure people would still be using Saddam as a Boogeyman figure, (he was throughout the 90's, why change right?) human-rights groups would still be complaining about his crimes, (and wondering why nobody did anything about it), and he'd probably STILL get grouped in with the bad guys we were fighting in the region regardless because he'd still be high on our international shit-list.
 
Saddam Hussein would be 73. If he's still alive, his days as dictator is numbered. Once he pass, one of his sons would take over and adopt a less confrontational policy. Both of them thought the old man was going to invite a war and get them killed.

Afghanistan would likely be much more stable though its hard to say if the war would be "won". Certainly with less money spent on the wars US debt would be several hundred billion less. But more importantly, American prestige would be in far better shape.

Economically we probably would be in the same recession. But there would not be the burden of two wars to distract policy makers.

American relations with China would be in worse shape. One of the foreign policy successes Bush had was a stable Sino-American relationship. However his administration started on a bad footing with the EP-3/J-8 collision. The relationship was going down hill fast when 9-11 happened and finally turned around as Bush switched his attention to Iraq.

Iran wouldn't be half the problem it is now. The Iranians didn't get serious with their nuclear program until Bush named them part of the Axis of Evil and prepared to invade Iraq. Without the invasion, Iran would still have its arch-enemy Iraq, to contend with. There's also little in the way Iran can threaten an America that isn't mired in Iraq, other than to support Hezboallah in their fight with Israel. But its doubtful if Iran would be so bold to challenge the US that still have the bulk of its army ready to invade if need be.

It's hard to see why Bush doesn't invade Iraq however. He was ideologically disposed to implement Neo-Conservative theories of using regime change to fix the Middle East. The military was thought capable of such missions. The confrontation with Iraq was likely to happen one way or another. Without the WMD threat the war would have been sold another way, as Tony Blair admitted.
 
Top