What if the 2003 American invasion of Iraq doesn't occur?

Dec 2012
1,556
U.S.A.
#21
Good points. I'm not thinking that Saddam is so.important as I'm wondering whether or not the uprisings in the other countries were possible because of the American invasion. Take Syria for instance, was Assad less forceful in his actions because he feared American involvement? If it could happen to Saddam it could happen to me sort of thing. Does my question make sense?
It does. I think events have shown that Assad has not shown much restraint, as evidenced by his use of chemical weapons.

I can't make the connection between alleged WMDs in Iraq and the Arab Spring. If anything, the Middle East saw what happens during an uprising when the Shiites rebelled. IIRC the Shiites controlled 15 of Iraq's 19 provinces before Saddam regrouped and crushed them. I can't imagine that a single person in the ME would forget that.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,874
SoCal
#22
If that invasion hadn't taken place, the US economy would be better today, and most of the Middle East would be better off.
Why exactly do you say that about the U.S. economy?

As for most of the Middle East, I am tempted to disagree with you in regards to this as well. After all, Saddam was perceived as being a (possible) threat to some/many of his neighbors.

However, without the U.S. invading Iraq, the (total) U.S. debt today would have been somewhat smaller than it actually is today in real life.
 
Dec 2011
4,572
Iowa USA
#23
No, I don't think so.

Anyway, I still think that if you want as late of a PoD for this as possible, then having Gore win in 2000 might have very well done the trick here. Also, this would have been very easy to do considering that Gore only lost Florida and thus the 2000 U.S. Presidential election by just 537 votes.
That figure is the net margin of votes. So had just 269 individuals reversed a Bush vote for Gore then a margin of one vote in theory could have elected Gore!

I was a Florida resident in 2000, I remember getting to the polling place early and experiencing a heavy turnout at there. The margin statewide continues to amaze me.

And that's all of the off topic tangent from me. :sad:
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,874
SoCal
#24
1. That figure is the net margin of votes. So had just 269 individuals reversed a Bush vote for Gore then a margin of one vote in theory could have elected Gore!

2. I was a Florida resident in 2000, I remember getting to the polling place early and experiencing a heavy turnout at there. The margin statewide continues to amaze me.

3. And that's all of the off topic tangent from me. :sad:
1. Yes, that is correct.

2. I certainly understand what you mean.

3. OK. :)
 
Mar 2010
2,522
#25
If that invasion hadn't taken place, the US economy would be better today, and most of the Middle East would be better off.
This. But not in the degree that you consider it. We'd already invaded Afghanistan and by 2006 our situation there was excellent. So, if we had been "more focused", I can only attribute it to further positive results. However, I never wanted to Nation-Build in the Middle East.

But the housing market would have burst as it did. We would still done pretty much the same thing we did to correct that (as much as I disagreed with that). And Obama would still have been elected president.

And when you say "Most of the Middle East would be better off", you are really saying, "a lesser form of chaos". It wouldn't be better off. Perhaps 10 years from now, the net results of the today's and tomorrow's actions turns the Middle East into a prosperous environment. You gotta saw off something to get the infection away from the body. Because, even before the invasion, much of what was going on in the Middle East was still crap.

Then you would have to continue to deal with the sanctions. What do you do with sanctions? How long do you hold it over a regime? Sanctions simply does not work. It is a weak strategic mindset.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,874
SoCal
#26
And Obama would still have been elected president.
If for some reason Bush Jr. does not invade Iraq (which I consider to be unlikely, but let's go with it) and still gets re-elected, then I think that Hillary Clinton, rather than Barack Obama, would have been elected U.S. President in 2008.
 
Jun 2018
210
New Hampshire
#27
What happens to Iraq and the greater Middle East if Saddam Hussein's regime isn't toppled in 2003? Does this affect Syria dramatically? Does the revolt against Assad still take place? What about the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, do they still occur? Would Iraq eventually fall anyway? To whom? A foreign power, or internal forces?
If the invasion of Iraq never happened, the Middle East would be a far more stable region of the world than it is today. For one thing, with the secular Arab strongman Saddam Hussein in power (or perhaps one of his sons at this point) the Daesh terrorist organization would not exist. Baathist Iraq clamped down hard on Islamic extremism.

There would also be an effective regional counterweight to Iranian influence. Saddam never would have tolerated a nuclear armed Iran on his doorstep.
 
Likes: Menshevik

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,874
SoCal
#28
If the invasion of Iraq never happened, the Middle East would be a far more stable region of the world than it is today. For one thing, with the secular Arab strongman Saddam Hussein in power (or perhaps one of his sons at this point) the Daesh terrorist organization would not exist. Baathist Iraq clamped down hard on Islamic extremism.

There would also be an effective regional counterweight to Iranian influence. Saddam never would have tolerated a nuclear armed Iran on his doorstep.
Saddam also helped radicalize Iraq's Sunni Arab population with his Faith Campaign--a campaign that would have continued in this scenario.

Also, with Saddam still in power, it's possible that Iran would have continued to seek nuclear weapons after 2003.
 

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
4,572
Iowa USA
#29
If for some reason Bush Jr. does not invade Iraq (which I consider to be unlikely, but let's go with it) and still gets re-elected, then I think that Hillary Clinton, rather than Barack Obama, would have been elected U.S. President in 2008.
I'm inclined to think that without anti-Iraq war energy that John Edwards would have run stronger in the early primaries.

McCain-Clinton? Advantage to Clinton but probably quite a bit narrower than the actual 2008 contest.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jul 2016
8,711
USA
#30
If the invasion of Iraq never happened, the Middle East would be a far more stable region of the world than it is today. For one thing, with the secular Arab strongman Saddam Hussein in power (or perhaps one of his sons at this point) the Daesh terrorist organization would not exist. Baathist Iraq clamped down hard on Islamic extremism.

There would also be an effective regional counterweight to Iranian influence. Saddam never would have tolerated a nuclear armed Iran on his doorstep.
Saddam was secular? What about his Faith Campaign, when he reversed his previous secular policies and started pushing for more Sunni Islam laws? How is it the leaders of DAESH were students at Saddam University? Is Salafist education secular? And isn't it weird that DAESH was formed by numerous Ba'athist former Saddam cronies? Coincidence?
 
Likes: Futurist