What If the Dubya Bush Admin. Had Decided not to Invade Iraq?

[Exarch]

and instead decided to focus on afghanistan-where the alleged 9/11 attackers were?

would a-stan be relatively pacified by now (over a period of 8-9 yrs?)
would the USA still retain a lot of its global goodwill pre-2003?

[Angrychris]

depends on what you mean by pacificed. more conflict means more anti-war protests. then again we are fighting a two front war/occupation and nothing has changed.

[Manco]

I think that not only would Afghanistan have much more US boots on the ground, but that it would've also meant more NATO support and boots in general on the ground.
The Iraq war seriously damaged relations, and unfortunately it has lead to people just lumping the two wars together. Something for which the Afghans are now paying the price.

I wonder in what way the Americans realize how much Bush squandered near global support for his actions

[Poach]

With NATO concentrating in Afghanistan I'd think the country would be in a far better state now. Plus the oil situation wouldn't be in such a bad state! Damn petrol prices...

[Exarch]

however keeping in mind that saddam's iraq would've switched to the euro (no more petrodollars) so what would've been the implications of that today?

[Poach]

The Euro being the currency of choice for the trade of Oil, perhaps? America would hold less financial clout in the world and the EU would hold substantially more.

[Vermelho_Steele]

Also, Saddam's murderous regime would still be standing and many Iraqis would still suffer under their dic(k)tator. Afghanistan isn't going to be won by force, but by who can win the average Afghani people. The Taliban will always be there, the best one can do is curb their power and influence and do what you can to turn the public against them.

The problem with the Iraq was not that it happended, but that the US stayed there making them look like colonial aggressors and also the inevitable civilian deaths from prolonged occupation also didn't help the USA.

[Exarch]

iraq was totally unnecessary in relation to the 9/11 attacks
saddam's regime had nothing to do with 9/11 and in fact was an adversary of the taliban who hated saddam's secular regime.
no, the Bush admin officials who were part of Project for a new American Century such as cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perle etc had alreayd outlined the need to control iraq and iraq's strategic location/water/oil for the future even before 9/11.

[Vermelho_Steele]

Oh, god. Here I was thinking I could escape the paranoid Liberal far-Left.

Proof, I suppose if they had planned it for so long, then there must be proof (ie documents)
At the time, the US government had evidence that pointed towards Iraq, but was later proved false. Basically, the Bush adminstration worked with what they had at the time.

[Poach]

Well, I don't know about the state of the Iraq War in the US, but in the UK the "evidence" of WMDs is now largely regarded (as from the findings of the inquiry) as a fabrication, or atleast widely blown out of proportion.

[Vermelho_Steele]

Yes, the lying and exagerration of the Bush Administration was rather insulting. But the admin was working with what they had, believing that Saddam earliers (pre-1991) ambitions were still alive (meaning dominating the Middle-East and destroying Israel.

Saddam did have some chemical weapons in the eighties and nineties, but they were largely removed by 1991 Gulf War.

[Hattushilish]

and instead decided to focus on afghanistan-where the alleged 9/11 attackers were?
would a-stan be relatively pacified by now (over a period of 8-9 yrs?)

No. The only time that Afghanistan has been pacified in the last 30 years was under Taliban rule.

Hamid Karzai would still be running the Afghan government. The people of Afghanistan are not a monolith; they're a bunch of individuals who would like to have their preferred warlord dominate all the other warlords. They do not want a strong central government restricting their particular warlord in any way.

Remember, the majority of the Afghan population is Pashtun. But the Northern Alliance (remember them?) is almost entirely Uzbek, Tajik and Hazara. They only reason they've been willing to work with Karzai (a Pashtun) is because they're opportunists who are trying to get money and weapons from the Americans.
But they're also actively undermining Karzai with one hand while pretending to support him with the other. Most of the Northern Alliance factions joined the UNF in 2007 as the "loyal opposition" to Karzai in parliament.
But when Karzai tried to have Rashid Dostum (a warlord and UNF member) prosecuted in 2008 for kidnapping and beating his political opponents, the UNF threatened civil war. The charges were dropped because Dostum has his own personal army of roughly 20,000 men and Karzai wasn't about to rock the boat.

So no, Afghanistan would not be pacified by now, and it will not be pacified until the Coalition leaves, Karzai is killed and the Taliban returns to power.
I know, I know, I'm a "defeatist" because stating the facts makes me defeatist.

would the USA still retain a lot of its global goodwill pre-2003?

Probably. Speculation of course, but people around the world were definitely upset by the invasion of Iraq.

Proof, I suppose if they had planned it for so long, then there must be proof (ie documents)

...like the 10 Downing Street memo.

[ssfsx17]

What I think would happen:

1. Almost nothing changes at home. In fact, the war in Afghanistan might be going even worse, since David Petraeus would have no chance to institute his reforms. The leadership in Afghanistan would keep on thinking, "We just need to bomb the Taliban more and everything will be fine." Bush might even continue to listen to Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and other idiots when it comes to war strategy, since there is no reason for him to change. Either that, or the reforms happen at the last minute, when it's too late and the Taliban have already taken over Pakistan.

2. Either we get a very boring and uninteresting Republican president, such as Giuliani or Romney, or we get a very boring and uninteresting Democrat president, such as Edwards. McCain continues to be a non-entity, and Sarah Palin never rises. The entire epic battle between Clinton and Obama, leading to Obama getting elected, could never happen.

[Phier]

If we focused on Afghanistan, the same people complaining would be complaining we didn't do anything about Iraq, its WMD's, and how Saddam could destabilize the whole region at any moment.

[Kjertesvein]

If we focused on Afghanistan, the same people complaining would be complaining we didn't do anything about Iraq, its WMD's, and how Saddam could destabilize the whole region at any moment.

Oh Yeah. destabilize is a funny word coming out of an americans:

• Saddam Hussein.Inc
• Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.Inc
• Osama Bin Laden
• Taliban.org
• Israel

[A Demented Goldfish]

If we focused on Afghanistan, the same people complaining would be complaining we didn't do anything about Iraq, its WMD's, and how Saddam could destabilize the whole region at any moment.

iraq had no WMD's and anyone who thinks they ever did has a mental defect or lives in america, there the same thing really

[Vermelho_Steele]

Most Americans don't delude themselves about Iraq anymore and face it, everyone was happy when Saddam was ousted, but evryone got angry when the war dragged on.

[conon394]

iraq had no WMD's and anyone who thinks they ever did has a mental defect or lives in america, there the same thing really

When did Tony Blair change his nationality?

everyone was happy when Saddam was ousted

Really I’m not he was neutered and contained for a fraction of the cost in lives, treasure and political capital that the US has since spent – or would spend in another 20 or 50 years.

[Azog 150]

When did Tony Blair change his nationality?

The common opinion in Britain is that Tony Blair knew it was a load of bollocks but followed Bush anyway in order to maintain the 'special relationsip'. Its why we get called America's poodle by just about everyone (Ourselves included)

Iraq was by far the worst mistake of the decade (By Britain anyway).

[conon394]

The common opinion in Britain is that Tony Blair knew it was a load of bollocks but followed Bush anyway in order to maintain the 'special relationsip'. Its why we get called America's poodle by just about everyone (Ourselves included)

I would argue Bush carried a sizable number of Americans the same way - the story was weak and made no sense but was given the benefit of the doubt. In any case Bush was able to convince a sizable number world leaders - for whatever reason...

In passing Blair gets more bitterness from my wife than Bush - it was his eloquence and apparent honest conviction than convinced her more than any of Bush's half assed prattle and smirking.