WI: No Iraq War 2003

RousseauX

Donor
The Iraq was largely driven by figures from within the Bush Administration who had both a material incentive as well as ideological vision for the Middle-East. There was nothing necessary about the war, and the conflict caused enormous damage to both the Republican party establishment as well as the body politics of the US. Future historians will almost certainly see it as a watershed moment in decline of the post-cold war American global hegemony.

What if the US never invades Iraq? Let's say in 2002 Vice President Cheney, Sec.Defense Rumsfield, Paul Wolfowitz and a number of the other members of the Neonconservative wing of the White house are killed in a limo accident. Official government reports point to a series of low probability events occurring simultaneously which caused the accident. Though conspiracy theories are par with the JFK assassinations ranging from an Al-Qaeda attack to an attempted coup in Washington are accepted by large percentage of the population.

Let's say this derails the Bush Administration enough that they never take the opportunity to invade in 2003. What happens afterwards? While there's no evidence Iraq had a nuclear program Iran did pause its program in 2003 due to the invasion. Is there another Iran-Iraq war at some point? Does the Republican party stay closer to the center, is America less polarized? Is there a successful pivot to Asia? Does America avoid the populist wave starting in 2010? Do Obama and Trump still get as far as they did in politics?
 
The economy was fine, but the recovery from the 2001 recession was still lagging in Middle America. Ohio in particular was still suffering from manufacturing job losses.
 

Philip

Donor
He's the incumbent, economy was doing well, he still has the Halo effect from 9/11 and Afghanistan as rally round the flag thing, Iraq war was net negative for him in 2004

Probably picks up some sympathy from the loss of VP, etc. Speaking of that, who is the new VP?
 
Depending on how things are going in Afghanistan, Bush probably wins reelection in 2004. The butterflies start to get really interesting after this, if John Kerry is still the nominee in 2004, you may very well still have Obama giving the convention speech. He wasn't a foreign policy figure at that time, and his speech was more about how his story was only possible in the US, not really the war. Regardless, he'll still be elected in 2004 to his Senate seat. Moving past 2004, since the economy is still doing pretty well in 2006 and with no Iraq war, Dems may not take back the House or Senate. The poor Katrina response probably still happens though, and the Republicans probably have a typical President's party midterm performance. In 2008, even if Obama runs, there's no war vote on Hillary's record, and she probably wins the nomination. In this scenario, Obama is still a wildly popular and young national figure. He wasn't crazy about the senate once he got there, so it's possible he could run for Governor of Illinois instead of reelection. He'd probably be something close to a frontrunner in 2016, regardless.

Thinking about other countries that went into the war, Tony Blair may be able to hold off Brown longer, and is almost certainly thought of in a better light than he is today. Additionally, if you subscribe to the theory that the Iraq war destabilized the entire Middle East, you could make an argument that the Syrian conflict never happens, thus no refugee crisis, and possibly, no Brexit.

As for the populism, I chalk that up more to the economic problems than the war, so you could still see a lot of that happening in this timeline. However, Clinton won't have any birther conspiracies about her that propelled some notable figures into power.
 
Last edited:
Well, killing of the neocons definitely leaves a power vacuum in the Repubs. Should the focus just be on Aghanistan, then things would go smoother there I reckon.


However, 2008 Recession will still hit hard and I figure that will hit the Repubs painfully
 
Thinking about other countries that went into the war, Tony Blair may be able to hold off Brown longer, and is almost certainly thought of in a better light than he is today. Additionally, if you subscribe to the theory that the Iraq war destabilized the entire Middle East, you could make an argument that the Syrian conflict never happens, thus no refugee crisis, and possibly, no Brexit.

Yeah, Blair would've been able to stay in office longer, and he would be more well-regarded nowadays...
I would also argue that Aznar may have been able to stay in office longer too in Spain, considering how his loss in the 2004 election was attributed to his support for the Iraq war...
This means that same-sex marriage may not happen in Spain for a while, and considering that Spain legalizing same-sex marriage served as an inspiration for some in Latin American countries...
So same-sex marriage may be less widespread than OTL...

I would say that conversely, Schroeder and Chirac would be less well-regarded than OTL, due to them not being able to use their opposition to the Iraq war as a rallying point...

I would also argue that the idea of humanitarian intervention may still be more acceptable than OTL, due to Iraq not tainting it as much...
And there would be less chance for "whataboutism" from say, Russia, so maybe there may be more willingness to push back against them?
(Like if Russia ends up pulling shit in Crimea, for instance).

Also the US would be more well-regarded throughout the world...
 
Yeah, Blair would've been able to stay in office longer, and he would be more well-regarded nowadays...
I would also argue that Aznar may have been able to stay in office longer too in Spain, considering how his loss in the 2004 election was attributed to his support for the Iraq war...
This means that same-sex marriage may not happen in Spain for a while, and considering that Spain legalizing same-sex marriage served as an inspiration for some in Latin American countries...
So same-sex marriage may be less widespread than OTL...

I would say that conversely, Schroeder and Chirac would be less well-regarded than OTL, due to them not being able to use their opposition to the Iraq war as a rallying point...

I would also argue that the idea of humanitarian intervention may still be more acceptable than OTL, due to Iraq not tainting it as much...
And there would be less chance for "whataboutism" from say, Russia, so maybe there may be more willingness to push back against them?
(Like if Russia ends up pulling shit in Crimea, for instance).

Also the US would be more well-regarded throughout the world...

Yeah, it's weird to think about how much this scrambles politics even now. Reading your post and contemplating how this changes our perceptions of everyone in the west reminds me of this Economist cover from about 15 years ago.

econ.jpg
 
As has been touched upon, no Iraq strengthens the centrist forces in both Labour and the Democrats. Both Obama and Ed Miliband traded on their opposition to the war to win narrow victories over pro war rivals in internal party contests. No war probably means Hilary becomes President in 2008, and David Miliband becomes leader of the Labour Party, perhaps becoming PM at the same time, as a third Blair landslide in 2005 could allow Labour to cling onto power at the next election, despite the financial crisis.
 
No Iraq probably at worst softens the blow in the 2006 midterms, which means a lot more moderate conservatives stay in power as Republicans. This basically butterflies the Tea Party, and the genesis of the Trump movement, at least not to the extent did OTL. There will be a backlash to neoliberalism, but it will be much, much softer.

On social issues, if Rove is still around there probably is still the push to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and who knows, SSM in America might be stalled more due to not being associated with as disastrous an Administration. The question is how an Iraqless GOP will handle immigration reform. With his political capital not being spent in Iraq, Bush might have the ability to get immigration reform through even with the pressure by CIS/FAIR. It would probably lead to a different perception of Republican policymakers of the political status of the Latino vote, away from the OTL Wilsonite-Trumpist course.

I would say that when the recession comes, it probably would still lead to a populist backlash, but it would be mostly a left-wing thing.
 
Top