WI: George Bush Was Completely Right About Iraq?

Pangur

Donor
Basically an endless war. The US attacks Syria and Iran. They would keep going until they are worn out financially (war is a very expensive business) and/or they loose.
 
wind down Iraq a lot quicker, and let whatever happens to the economy happen - if Bush is out of there in 2004, he will be remembered as an effective and thoughtful leader, not as the incompetent oaf he's been characterized as since then.

We tried to draw down a number of times in Iraq under Bush contrary to popular belief. Each time other then 2008 the situation got far worse on the ground and al-Qaeda's power surged. Bush did finally notice the connection between troop levels to al-Qaeda's power and overall violence in Iraq was what McCain and some others told him it was and it was what led to Rumsfeld along with the generals who agreed with his light footprint strategy getting booted.

After Saddam was captured Rumsfeld and the military started to draw down and the situation exploded in the spring of 2004. They did the same two years later only for al-Qaeda to set of sectarian violence in Baghdad.

To be honest even though I didn't support going to war in the first place there is no way in hell I thought we should just cut and run and watch sectarian war engulf central Iraq while al-Qaeda controls large parts of the country and Iran controls the south. That would be far worse then Saddam being in power in the first place. The chance of it turning into a regional civil war all along the Sunni/Shia fault line from Beirut through Syria to Baghdad was very high as well.

Basically an endless war. The US attacks Syria and Iran. They would keep going until they are worn out financially (war is a very expensive business) and/or they loose.

Syria and Iran knew how to keep their heads down and knew American domestic politics in a way Saddam did not. People forget how well they played post 911 public opinion. In fact Assad was working with the CIA from 2001-2003. He stopped working with the CIA when he knew public opinion in the U.S. made an invasion of his country politically impossible.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it'd change a goddamn thing. I'm a liberal and all, but I've felt a lot of the Bush hatred took root in such a way that changing any one thing he did wrong can't simply erase it.

Honestly, you want to redeem Bush in the eyes of (alternate) history, get him out of there before his second term starts. Take away Katrina, his many domestic policy failures, hell, wind down Iraq a lot quicker, and let whatever happens to the economy happen - if Bush is out of there in 2004, he will be remembered as an effective and thoughtful leader, not as the incompetent oaf he's been characterized as since then.

The OP said that pretty much everything in Iraq went perfect for Bush, WMD got found, and that there was a stable, functioning liberal democracy in Baghdad by the end of 2003.

I mean, Bush led a pretty fucking incompetent government no matter what, but what effects would Katrina, Plame, Schiavo, other domestic failures, Afghanistan, and the 2006 wave of scandals in Congress, have on him and his legacy without BUSH LIED THE TROOPS DIED and general Iraq-related negativeness overshadowing him and dogging him down?
 
I'm not persuaded that Bush would have invaded Iraq if there was a genuine prospect that Iraq was in possession of significant quantities of chemical or biological weapons, or god forbid, even a crude working nuclear weapon. The basis for invading Iraq was that it was the low hanging fruit. Minimal risk, mucho (imagined) reward.
 
I'm not persuaded that Bush would have invaded Iraq if there was a genuine prospect that Iraq was in possession of significant quantities of chemical or biological weapons, or god forbid, even a crude working nuclear weapon. The basis for invading Iraq was that it was the low hanging fruit. Minimal risk, mucho (imagined) reward.

Saddam did have massive amounts of chemical and biological weapons during the first Gulf War. He didn't use them then on U.S. troops.

Sure if Iraq clearly had a nuke Bush wouldn't have invaded (either Bush), but we know both Bush's didn't believe he did. If W did he would have been promoting that Saddam had a nuke. The most extreme portion of the Bush administration on the issue accused Saddam of seeking uranium tubes to build a nuclear program not having a nuke. Condi as we learn now was fighting with Cheney on at the time on the tubes issue.

But, even the likes of Condi believed they would find enough left over chemical weapons at worst from the pre-Gulf War era they could say to the world and especially the U.S. public after see Saddam was violating the terms of the case fire. Oh, and yes they did think Iraq was the low hanging fruit.
 
Last edited:
Saddam did have massive amounts of chemical and biological weapons during the first Gulf War. He didn't use them then on U.S. troops.

US troops weren't trying to overthrow him, it's far easier to use every weapon in your arsenal when you have nothing to lose.
 
US troops weren't trying to overthrow him, it's far easier to use every weapon in your arsenal when you have nothing to lose.

He thought even during the second Iraq War while it was going on that he could create a fortress Baghdad and hold out for months against the U.S. sort of like Assad has created a fortress Damascus against the rebels there and international opinion along with his allies overseas would come to his aid and the U.S. would be forced to leave. It wouldn't help his war plans to use WMDs on U.S. troops as the U.S. during both Gulf Wars threatened to go nuclear if he did.
 
I imagine if Saddam Hussein still had chemical weapons then the US government wouldn't know where they were and to destroy them because they already invaded gambling this in 2003. In his most desperate hour Saddam would release chemical weapons in the area of US and British forces are invading from via mobil weapons equipment. He could even launch weapons towards Israel to create chaos and kill civilians there in his last actions. Few Allied soldiers would die from exposure to toxic gas, but thousands of civilians will probably be killed in areas where the gas is released to hold off Western invasion forces. Any casualties would come from Iraqi attacks on bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as well as equipment malfunctions among Allied units.
 
We tried to draw down a number of times in Iraq under Bush contrary to popular belief. Each time other then 2008 the situation got far worse on the ground and al-Qaeda's power surged. Bush did finally notice the connection between troop levels to al-Qaeda's power and overall violence in Iraq was what McCain and some others told him it was and it was what led to Rumsfeld along with the generals who agreed with his light footprint strategy getting booted.

After Saddam was captured Rumsfeld and the military started to draw down and the situation exploded in the spring of 2004. They did the same two years later only for al-Qaeda to set of sectarian violence in Baghdad.
I understand that. One of the beautiful things about this board is how reading Alt. History has helped me understand OTL better. At that point I was talking about his successor though - no doubt any Democrat elected in 2004 would get right out of there.

The OP said that pretty much everything in Iraq went perfect for Bush, WMD got found, and that there was a stable, functioning liberal democracy in Baghdad by the end of 2003.

I mean, Bush led a pretty fucking incompetent government no matter what, but what effects would Katrina, Plame, Schiavo, other domestic failures, Afghanistan, and the 2006 wave of scandals in Congress, have on him and his legacy without BUSH LIED THE TROOPS DIED and general Iraq-related negativeness overshadowing him and dogging him down?
Was Schiavo really that political an issue? I heard a ton about it when it was happening, but I don't remember it much in a political context - just as a weird media frenzy event that made no fucking sense to me as someone who didn't even know what a 'persistent vegetative state' was yet.

Um, I'd say yes, actually, yes it would. As long as there are wars in the Middle East, nothing changes as far as I see it. I don't think people were as angry as 'Bush lied' as 'Troops died', and as long as you have B, it'll lead to long-term issues. Bush still has two wars on his head, even if the second one was successful, the first is still going in OTL and no doubt would ITTL. I don't think it'll make a difference to liberals and indies where the troops are dying - as long as troops are dying, it'll piss people off.
 
Then the Iraqis...started taking over all of their civic responsibilities of a provisional government like directing traffic, volunteering in hospitals, forming groups to educate people about voting,

Iraqi's were attempting to organize local elections as early as two months after the fall of Saddam, much to the chagrin of the occupying forces, who put a stop to it.
 
Was Schiavo really that political an issue? I heard a ton about it when it was happening, but I don't remember it much in a political context - just as a weird media frenzy event that made no fucking sense to me as someone who didn't even know what a 'persistent vegetative state' was yet.

It shouldn't have been a political issue, and in the long term it wasn't really much of one. But it was an issue in 2005 when Bush and the Congress got involved, and I definitely remember a lot of people going "what in the fuck?" Might not have been obvious right after Bush's reelection, but it was still there. And weird media frenzies have this strange way of influencing public opinion on presidents and governments.

Um, I'd say yes, actually, yes it would.

Um, you'd say yes, actually, yes it would what?

As long as there are wars in the Middle East, nothing changes as far as I see it. I don't think people were as angry as 'Bush lied' as 'Troops died', and as long as you have B, it'll lead to long-term issues. Bush still has two wars on his head, even if the second one was successful, the first is still going in OTL and no doubt would ITTL. I don't think it'll make a difference to liberals and indies where the troops are dying - as long as troops are dying, it'll piss people off.

Well of course there will be people against the war. American anti-war sentiment is so obviously a way of our national livelihood it shouldn't even need to be reminded.
 
Basically an endless war. The US attacks Syria and Iran. They would keep going until they are worn out financially (war is a very expensive business) and/or they loose.

This. The neocon vision behind Iraq was that we could use military force to remake the region in our own image and, in the process, profit from the extraction of natural resources (oil). Success in Iraq would have seemingly vindicated that theory and the wars would have continued until one went awry. My guess is that Iran would have been a problem...

The only thing that might in a way temper that is Afghanistan, which was destined to end less than optimally in any event unless, as is the case with this hypothetical scenario, there is massive ASB intervention that alters the outcome.

The other problem is that in politics, nothing can lead to even greater failure than massive initial success. The early '00s Republican party was prone to overreach; we saw that with the congressional corruption and ill-fated attempt to privatize Social Security. Initial success in Iraq followed by an even larger probability of even greater overreach and further wars -- plus the likelihood that none of this changes the chances that we still have a 2007-08 financial crisis or the botched response to Katrina, could lead to a Republican Party that is in even worse shape heading into 2008 than it was.

And, in hindsight, it's clear that Karl Rove's fantasy of a permanent GOP majority was just that -- a fantasy. Changing demographics and social norms likely would have put the GOP on treacherous ground regardless of any of this.
 
It shouldn't have been a political issue, and in the long term it wasn't really much of one. But it was an issue in 2005 when Bush and the Congress got involved, and I definitely remember a lot of people going "what in the fuck?" Might not have been obvious right after Bush's reelection, but it was still there. And weird media frenzies have this strange way of influencing public opinion on presidents and governments.
I guess my memory's just poor of that event given my lack of interest in politics and historical subjects at that period. I remember the Schiavo issue very well in itself though.

Um, you'd say yes, actually, yes it would what?
I slightly misread your question in the former of a 'Yes' or a 'No', probably because I got distracted halfway through typing. My bad on that one.

Well of course there will be people against the war. American anti-war sentiment is so obviously a way of our national livelihood it shouldn't even need to be reminded.
Well, exactly. I think as long as the Afghanistan War drags on, the same principles that made Iraq unpopular will apply with most of the general public, even though the reasoning would be different.
 
First, while the notion of no popular uprising isn't that far-fetched, the idea that they would remain patient and not turn against their American occupiers flies in the face of everything we know not just of military occupations, but also of military occupations in Arab countries in particular. There would have been an insurgency. PERIOD. The only question there is to what degree.

Second... back in 2001 and 2002, I tried very hard to publish work pointing out that even according to open intelligence sources, the case that Iraq had a serious WMD program was sheer bullsh*t, and the only reason everyone agreed with it was that they had a serious case of cover-your-ass and group-think. :)

Think about it. We knew that Iraq couldn't get spare parts for tank and jet engines for some of the most widely manufactured platforms in the world, like the T-55 and MiG-21. Those sanctions worked, and worked demonstrably well. So he can't get engine parts so common the African black market is awash in them, but he can rebuild a chemical and nuclear program that he needed the open assistance of France and Germany to build the first time around? Uh uh.

So keeping that in mind, for him to have real WMD assumes the complete collapse of the sanctions regime years before Bush was elected. Basically, that the regime never worked in the first place. In a scenario like that, it's more reasonable to say Clinton invades Iraq to distract the American public away from Monica.
 
So keeping that in mind, for him to have real WMD assumes the complete collapse of the sanctions regime years before Bush was elected. Basically, that the regime never worked in the first place. In a scenario like that, it's more reasonable to say Clinton invades Iraq to distract the American public away from Monica.
Of course, Clinton bombed Iraq (and ordered the inspectors out) in 1998, saying he was trying to destroy Iraq's WMD program. (Never mind that most targets were not affiliated with said program, and Hussein Kamil told the IAEA that IRaq's WMD programs were destroyed...)
 
I'm not persuaded that Bush would have invaded Iraq if there was a genuine prospect that Iraq was in possession of significant quantities of chemical or biological weapons, or god forbid, even a crude working nuclear weapon. The basis for invading Iraq was that it was the low hanging fruit. Minimal risk, mucho (imagined) reward.

The problem with Iraqi WMD and especially CW and BW is not so much a stockpile that can be used in 45 minutes:rolleyes::rolleyes:....its the fact that the knowledge of how to make the stuff is locked up in people's heads which couldn't be removed or in files which couldn't be located and destroyed and much of what is needed for CW and BW is also needed for perfectly legal chemical and biological industries.

Once the world got tired of looking in his direction it wouldn't have taken long to rebuild, its something that the UK's David Kelly more or less said when in his last letter to the press, he said

The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq's development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction - something that only regime change will avert.

which is sort of amusing when you hear people claim he was murdered because of his opposition to regime change.
 
Exactly. It's not a certainty that Clinton would have invaded, of course, but it becomes a plausible outcome of a collapsed sanctions regime.

Another aspect of this is how long it would have taken for Saddam Hussein to rebuild his WMD program without the active participation of Germany and France. The model for that would be the countries that needed decades to fabricate all the necessary technology themselves. They weren't being helped by an advanced Western country, but they also weren't being closely scrutinized and clamped down hard. Pakistan, North Korea, Iran until recently... these countries needed many, many years to make headway.

So, even if the sanctions regime collapsed as soon as it was implemented (say 1993), there is no guarantee that Hussein would have anything more meaningful that mustard gas bombs by 2002. Nine years ain't a lot of time, not when you put it into proper context.


Of course, Clinton bombed Iraq (and ordered the inspectors out) in 1998, saying he was trying to destroy Iraq's WMD program. (Never mind that most targets were not affiliated with said program, and Hussein Kamil told the IAEA that IRaq's WMD programs were destroyed...)
 

cavtrooper

Banned
The invasion was launched in Srping partly due to the presumption that the troops might have to fight in chemical gear at some point. The first time WMD's were used would come as something of a surprise however and even a nuclear weapon in the low kiloton range speaks for itself. Anthrax poisons an area for decades, An attack on a city such as London, with little to no warning and a lack of proper chemical gear would be a massacre on such a scale that Britain might come close to nuclear retaliation.

I served with the 3rd Infantry Division in OIF1,and we were fully prepared to fight in a chemical envoirnment.In fact,we donned NBC suits before leaving the plane in Kuwait City,as the SCUDs were coming in.
 
Top