WI: No Invasion of Iraq in 2003?

Archibald

Banned
The world would be a much, much less shittier place. For a start, no ISIS.
Seriously, the invasion was a disaster. More exactly, the aftermath, when they disbanded both Iraqi army and police, throwing the country into chaos. Kudos to you, Paul "fucking" Bremer.

Must resist saying "France was right (and was covered in shit for that...), there were excellent reasons NOT to make that war, non-existing WMDs aside."
Ooops, I failed. Meh.

Or say aloud "Saddam and his sons are murderers, we are removing them to try and make Iraq better". Ok, now that was a valuable reason. But please, not that shitty WMDs thing. Or saying that Saddam was related to 9-11. He was a son of a bitch, no question about that, but he wasn't related to 9-11. It was Osama's and Taleban baby.
 
No invasion of Iraq results in Iraq beginning to recover from the 90's fiasco economically with some nominal investments into it's military capability. Saddam maintains his policy of Islamist appeasement but still maintains baathist rule. It's unlikely that he would be ousted, he had the total support of the Iraqi Army and had created an atmosphere of fear after crushing the post Gulf War revolt.

Saddam would possibly be still alive today, currently in the midst of transferring power to his (competent) son. He would have faced an Arab spring revolt before Syria, but it would degenerate into an easily winnable civil war. This takes some of the pressure off of Syria but also prevents the rise of ISIS.
 

trajen777

Banned
Basically i see :
1. Much less debt for the USA -- and more spent on infrastructure
2. USA more active in containing China
3. No Arab spring
4. ISIS still around -- or some other form of it
5. 2008 still happens
6. Saddam still in power
7. Iran weaker
 
Depends on what happens in Afghanistan. Do they instead focus on that for the next decade wih a much more active ISAS prescence instead of the anemic 2003-2008 period or does the US downplay the whole War on terror thing?
 
One of the things that I wonder about is would the US arm the Kurds in Iraq so that they could fight Saddam for independence. This covert action would weaken Saddam. However the Turks have concerns about an independent Kurd homeland. Would the Turks push back against arming the Kurds?

If Kurdistan ends up being created from northern Iraq and no Turkish land is used, Turkey may be a little more inclined to go along. Maybe. I always understood the Turkish objection to an independent Kurdistan to be a desire to avoid giving up land.

Conservatism in America being stronger isn't exactly a good thing.

Depends on the conservatism. If it ends up toward the middle, it's an improvement. If it's full of Christian fundamentalists and whack jobs, then, well, no one needs that.
 
If Kurdistan ends up being created from northern Iraq and no Turkish land is used, Turkey may be a little more inclined to go along. Maybe. I always understood the Turkish objection to an independent Kurdistan to be a desire to avoid giving up land.

But inevitably, establishment of an independent Kurdistan in Iraq would encourage Turkey's Kurds to rebel to win independence too. Iran and Syria would have the same problem.
 
But inevitably, establishment of an independent Kurdistan in Iraq would encourage Turkey's Kurds to rebel to win independence too. Iran and Syria would have the same problem.

So some kind of treaty would have to be affected that says, "This is Kurdistan. Barring unforeseen circumstances, this is it. Rebel and you will either be imprisoned or deported there."
 
So some kind of treaty would have to be affected that says, "This is Kurdistan. Barring unforeseen circumstances, this is it. Rebel and you will either be imprisoned or deported there."


They've always faced worse risks--rebel and you'll be killed but it didn't deter Iraqi Kurds or the PKK.
 
Top