WI Paul Bremer wasn't put in charge of Iraq

Well with the given PoD, I think we're stuck w him until his retirement.

Yes, I was suggesting an alternative idea.

But in an ATL with no Bremer but in which Franks is still in charge, followed by Sanchez, I think the optimisitic predictions for Iraq are way off. Garner may manage to avoid some of Bremer's more horrendous mistakes and the outrageous corruption that occured on his watch, but the military mistakjes and lack of leadership are still there.
 
But in an ATL with no Bremer but in which Franks is still in charge, followed by Sanchez, I think the optimisitic predictions for Iraq are way off.

Right, so something better than OTL's fiasco, but not close to as good as the optimistic predictions. That's the middle ground I'm hoping to find here.
 
Right, so something better than OTL's fiasco, but not close to as good as the optimistic predictions. That's the middle ground I'm hoping to find here.

On a scale of one to ten, with one being the most optimistic pre-war predictions, eight being OTL, and ten being the worst predictions, I'd say this would result in a six at the best, and a seven in all probability. Not really a middle ground, just slightly not as bad.
 
On a scale of one to ten, with one being the most optimistic pre-war predictions, eight being OTL, and ten being the worst predictions, I'd say this would result in a six at the best, and a seven in all probability. Not really a middle ground, just slightly not as bad.

So, what's that like, in terms of casualties, cost, length of troop presence, etc? (The last one, it was almost nine years OTL, so if that's an eight, a six would be what, five?)
 
Top