WI: No Iraq War

Inspired by this article.

First of all, I think America's international prestige would be greater. The justification for the Afghanistan War was a pretty clear cut case of retaliation for an attack against the US. As for the war itself, it might still be ongoing, but it would have been the Taliban that got smashed by the combination of the 'surge' and David Petraeus. It's possible that they could have been driven from western Afghanistan and forced to regroup in northern Pakistan. There might even have been a US withdrawal.

Tony Blair's reputation would be much greater in Britain. I doubt he'd still be Prime Minister, though. Most likely, he'd either have retired with dignity at some point, or resigned from the party leadership after losing the 2010 election.

The big question, of course, is Iraq itself. I think the author here isn't far off about Iraq and Iran acting as counterweights. Iran would have remained a regional pariah while Iraq maintained an alliance with Syria.

One interesting possibility is a US-Iran rapprochement. Saddam's Iraq would remain the most hostile nation to the US in the Middle East, and if the Bush administration tried to emphasize containing Iraq, then I could see them reaching out to Iran, treating them as a slightly kookier Saudi Arabia. If so, Iran might not start a nuclear program.

Then comes the Arab Spring. Most likely, Iraq would be another Syria (if Assad couldn't maintain control, I doubt Saddam could). But there would be three things different. First, there would be no remnant of Al Qaeda in Iraq to serve as a precursor to ISIS, although perhaps Zarqawi would have established something similar. Second, the United States would not be as tired of foreign intervention. Third, the Kurds would be almost certain to rise up against Saddam, and if Saddam used chemical weapons against them (which he probably would), it would be portrayed by the media not just as an atrocity, but as a genocide. At that point, US intervention would probably happen. Probably with boots (and, more importantly, tank treads) on the ground.
 
This will show my bias: A political benefit of the war was that it de-legitimized Neoconservatism. The Bush administration was the first Neocon administration. Reagan wasn't a Neoconservative. I would argue George H.W. Bush was not even one. The Neoconservatives did support them, but this was more a period of increasing power. They were greatly upset by the election of Clinton, viewing it as a misstep and an interregnum in their rise. The brain-trust of the Bush administration, the media behind it, etc were all the best and the brightest of the Neoconservative movement. The administration was when the movement came to power. And it collapsed under the failures of each effort it made and as each assertion it made proved false. Neoconservatism has really fallen by the wayside. And this allowed movements like the Tea Party to fill the void in the Republican party, while taking advantage of existing Conservative infrastructure.
 
Then comes the Arab Spring. Most likely, Iraq would be another Syria (if Assad couldn't maintain control, I doubt Saddam could). But there would be three things different. First, there would be no remnant of Al Qaeda in Iraq to serve as a precursor to ISIS, although perhaps Zarqawi would have established something similar.[/QUOTE[

If al-Qaeda and/or an ISIS analogue do come about and oppose Saddam Hussein, his brutality is going to make Assad look like a tree hugging hippie and make al-Qaeda/ISIS analogue wish they'd never been born (just look at what Saddam did to the Shias when they rose up in 1991: an estimated 180.000 casualties and mass graves are still being found). The irony here is that ISIS, being Sunni, considers Saddam a hero even though he was a secular Arab Socialist/Nationalist.

Second, the United States would not be as tired of foreign intervention.
True, but its Saudi and other Arab allies would be very worried about Iranian power increasing through meddling in Iraq on behalf of the inevitable Shia insurgency. I imagine they'd oppose American intervention against Saddam unless the latter uses WMDs, which he doubt he would for reasons cited below.

Third, the Kurds would be almost certain to rise up against Saddam, and if Saddam used chemical weapons against them (which he probably would), it would be portrayed by the media not just as an atrocity, but as a genocide. At that point, US intervention would probably happen. Probably with boots (and, more importantly, tank treads) on the ground.
Saddam would likely use chemical weapons on the Kurds if he thought he could get away with it. The question is: would he assume he could get away with it? This isn't the 80s anymore and he's no longer seen as the lesser of two evils, although Russia and China were arguing for the lifting of sanctions in the early 2000s IIRC.

Second, this assumes he had WMDs, but I highly doubt he did. If he did have WMDs, US forces would have found them post-2003. All evidence, or the lack thereof, suggests that Baath Iraq was WMD free or nearly so. If it wasn't, why didn't he use them? They're a use 'em or lose 'em weapon. He would have known he couldn't win and desperation can cause people to make stupid decisions.

It's extremely unlikely that Saddam's alleged WMDs would have remained hidden for this long if he really did have them. It's also unlikely that they wouldn't have remained unused in the Iraq War, either in the invasion or in the insurgency that followed. Baathist leaders would have known of them if they existed and therefore the Sunni resistance would also have, and they would have used them too (they could easily have gotten some in the early chaos of Saddam's fall and the fog of war of the time). Retaliating against a conventional enemy is one thing, but terrorists with chemical weapons are much harder to get back at. It's not like the US could glass a Sunni town every time Sunnis used chems, and the insurgents would have known that. If the insurgents had had WMDS, thet could have used them to inflict serious casualties without needing to fear a response in kind. So why didn't they use them? Most likely because Iraq didn't have any WMDs.
 
Top