If we hadn't gone to Iraq, what would be different today?

[Pangloss]

Simple enough question, but actually pretty difficult to answer clearly, or in such a way that all agree. See what you can do with it.

 

Answers should try to address the following categories:

- Politics (international and US-domestic)

- Economics

- Military/Defense (training, fitness and equipment, i.e. readiness/preparedness)

- Social/Misc (trust-of-government issues, popular partisanship, "mood of the country", etc)

- Impact on other major issues/events (war on terror, national security, and impact on unrelated events like abortion, gun control, immigration, etc)

 

(Note for international readers: Just to clarify, this question is intended to be US-focused, but your input is, as always, welcome. Please note the appropriate context if replying about affairs in your own country (which I think would be interesting, so please feel free to do so).)

[ecoli]

More money for research and education. And I think the political landscape would be less tense. Of course, the 2008 election would not be as exciting as I expect it will be.

 

I'm most curious about the state of Iraq had we not invaded. Are they more miserable with the domestic violence or living under an oppresive dictator? Out of the frying pan, into the fire - comes to mind.

[mr d]

Hello

 

Most likely we'd be looking at the pending war between Iraq and Iran. Sudam was never very friendly with Iran, remember a little thing called the Iraq/Iran war a way back when. We were supporting Iraq back then with advisors helping to halt the spread of fundamentalism out of Iran.

 

And he would not allow for a nuclear armed Iran, seeing it as a threat to himself.

 

In the U.S. and West political termoil over whom to support or whether to stay directly out of any conflict.

Fear of impending War would have driven up the price of oil, and Westerns would be decrying our dependance on foreign oil.

 

U.S. and Coalition troop levels would have been greatly increased in Afghanistan, trying to better secure the area in preparation for the need for Coalition bases to be established within that country if war does breakout. This would create greater Jihadist activity within Afghanistan, which concerns for securing the region would make it nessisary to increase the level of pacification carried out by western forces.

 

In the Western home nations, movements would have sprung up calling for all Coalition troops to be removed. Decrying this a regional Islamic War in which the West had no business.

 

Conservative newscasters would tout how the end is near and World War III was just around the corner. Religious leaders would concur and advise us to repent, as or decadent lifestyle was the root cause of this.

 

Most other people would be too interested in their ipods, game consoles, lcd tv's, and computer internet chatting to even care about any of it.

 

Mr D

[Skye]

Simple enough question, but actually pretty difficult to answer clearly, or in such a way that all agree. See what you can do with it.

 

Answers should try to address the following categories:

- Politics (international and US-domestic)

Foreign relations wouldn't have been much different. There wouldn't have been the tension but mostly things are business as usual.

 

Internal politics would have been different, I would expect the Republicans would have been cruising now.

Economics

There wouldn't have been so much speculative trading of oil, which led to that bubble. However with resource prices rising in general, oil would have still risen steadily, perhaps to a similar price it is today.

- Military/Defense (training, fitness and equipment, i.e. readiness/preparedness)

Probably not alot of difference. While the US military, at least the Army, doesn't have alot of spare capacity to carry out another sustained war, the current wars are not beyond it. The forces needed to carry out a short engagement (carrier groups, airforce, marine expeditionary units, special forces, etc) aren't really tied up in Iraq. There will be wear and tear on equipment in Iraq, and probably a reappraisal of what fighting wars are about, that could have longer term impacts on procurement and force structure.

[Ndi]

Non-us here.

 

Viewpoint: International

 

The money spent in weapons and troop movement could have been used in a global defense initiative to build a shield that could track and kill long range missiles. It could have been the start in a project that uses global scanners to track the use of radioactive materials and enforce a nuclear (weapon) ban. It could have been used for a heckload of good things without even leaving the military investment area. Not even starting on other non-military issues.

 

Or how about all those billions spent on even more down-to-earth research to quickly neutralize radioactive material? That would make nuclear waste and fallouts much less dangerous, maybe below the self-destruction threshold.

 

Viewpoint: US

 

I'm not in the US, so I'll keep it short. I know I'm not supposed to say this, I know it's not politically correct, I know. But I'll use your question as an excuse. I'm sorry, I really am. Perhaps it's better if you skip the next paragraph if you feel exceedingly patriotic. K?

 

For the land of the free home of the brave or whatever you call it you're not very free and not very brave. Nations put their foot down against tyranny, nations spill blood for freedom. So Iraqi/whatever blood was spilled. Are you any freeer (intended)? No. Well, you must be doing it wrong. You are going the wrong way, you can see it's going the wrong way, it's evident to a blind retarded infant that it's not going well. Resolution? Keep going. To the IgnoreIt Mobile!

 

What would change if you weren't doing it wrong? Everything.

 

Everything you have and do now has been at some point touched by the high drain on economy. These days everything has a price. Research has a price, you need to pump that much to make it happen. A human life has a price, you need that much to make and apply treatments. Sure you can't put a price on a philosophical, unknown, generic life. But a pinpoint single sick person? The cost of treatment. Approximate as it is.

 

The drain affected economy, health care, lifestyle, you name it. You think love has no price? Sure, money is not happiness, but lack of it sure brings unhappiness at some level. Can you truly say even THAT was unaffected? My opinion? Look around. Pick something. Anything. It'd probably be different.

 

I could go on complaining and ranting for days so I'll stop before I wear out my keys.

 

Viewpoint: My corner of planet (whatever it is - doesn't matter)

 

We'd all sleep better at night if we knew that only people who understand grammar were a factor in detonating nuclear arsenal. Cold war was bad, sure, but at least US had all missiles pre-aimed at Moscow and the other way around. Sure there'd be some radiation, but hey, we've had our share. We'll just call the third eye an evolutionary advantage. Plus, minus *some* drain, some percentage was pumped into advancement. Orbital, digital, whatever. SOMETHING good was coming out of it for everyone. What global good has Iraq/whatever was(s) brought?

 

Now? Heck, anyone could be next if you are not a power by yourself. What if my whatever country had this huge oil patch and a non-free-and-brave government? Am I safe? Less so I'm afraid.

[Pangloss]

I was actually looking more for what WOULD have happened, rather than what people might WISH had happened. A realistic assessment, if you will.

 

A lack of substantive response along those lines would seem to support the notion that it's easy to criticize, but harder to get at real solutions. Hindsight is 20/20, but only insofar as pinpointing mistakes.

 

The phrase "you're doing it wrong" being a classic example.

[ParanoiA]

A lack of substantive response along those lines would seem to support the notion that it's easy to criticize, but harder to get at real solutions. Hindsight is 20/20, but only insofar as pinpointing mistakes.

 

The phrase "you're doing it wrong" being a classic example.

 

Amen. Not to mention, whether anyone here wants to admit it or not, alot of these issues don't have a solution that will not yield negatives. Come on, how could Iraq have been handled that would result in zero negative consequences for all involved? In international politics, particularly conflicts, the best solution still hurts somebody, somewhere. Read about your country's history and you'll see what I mean Ndi.

[bascule]

The dollar would be up, because the US's outstanding obligations (now at $8.6 trillion) would be significantly less.

 

 

A sagging dollar is partly responsible for increased fuel prices. I think it can be argued that the Iraq War itself is also partly responsible for increased fuel prices.

[Sisyphus]

You say "hindsight is 20/20," but a) many of us predicted pretty much what is happening now, b) the public was misled, and so had different information to go on from the start, and c) nobody forced the president to keep pretending everything was going swimmingly ("Mission Accomplished," anyone?) .

 

ANYWAY, the nation feels misled, and they don't trust government, and Republicans in particular. The national mood is, indeed, pretty ugly. If not for Iraq, perhaps they'd still be in power.

 

I'm not well-versed in economics, but it seems an extremely occupation can't possibly be good, nor can going deeper and deeper into debt to pay for it. I don't know how much of an effect is has, overall, but I think it's safe to say that its significant, no?

 

I don't think long-term military capabilities have been harmed all that much. If we were to pull out of Iraq tomorrow, there would still be problems, like being understaffed due to recruitment problems, and, more seriously, there would still be the huge backlog in replacing equipment. We lack "boots on the ground" capability, which we would have if not for Iraq. We would have more forces dealing with Afghanistan properly, and could be more credibly menacing to nations like Iran. America's power in the world has suffered, as has its capability to deal with terrorism.

[ParanoiA]

You say "hindsight is 20/20," but a) many of us predicted pretty much what is happening now, b) the public was misled, and so had different information to go on from the start, and c) nobody forced the president to keep pretending everything was going swimmingly ("Mission Accomplished," anyone?) .

 

A) I'm not sure who you're referencing here, but every conflict we've gotten into since vietnam has been been predicted by anti-war folks as another vietnam. Saying the same thing over and over again until it finally comes arguably true doesn't qualify as a prediction.

 

B) The public was misled on what? WMD's have been found. And we know he had WMD's because we have the receipts. You're blinded by Bush hatred if you seriously believe Saddam didn't use the months and months of pre-invasion lead time to hide them. And terrorism is all over the globe so we could have invaded about 5 different countries and it would just about be justified.

 

C) The mission most certainly isn't accomplished. But it isn't all doom and gloom either. WWII would have looked like a "vietnam" the whole time if you covered every horrible thing that happened. War is horrible. Every war is disgusting with losses on both sides. What do you expect? A food fight? I've posted the losses of previous wars before, so I guess I'll have to do it again. Just wish the news media would do their job instead of pushing their agenda...

 

War Casualties KIA

Revolutionary War 10,623 4,435

War of 1812 6,765 2,260

Mexican-American War 17,435 1,733

Civil War 970,227 184,594

Spanish-American War 4,108 385

World War I 320,710 53,513

World War II 1,078,162 292,131

Korean War 136,935 33,651

Vietnam War 211,471 47,369

Gulf War 760 148

Iraq War (3/19/03) 2,921 2,397

 

(I can't figure out how to spread the numbers out so you can see it better...sorry. The links below will take you right to it and it's MUCH easier to read)

 

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/casualties_of_war.htm - all war data except for Iraq

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ - Iraq war data

 

So, 19 times as many soldiers will have to die before it matches that of vietnam. Vietnam was 7.5 years in length. The math just doesn't support that this is another vietnam, not even close. There are only 4 wars in this list that meet or exceed the time we have spent in Iraq. I count 45 months in Iraq. WWII was 44 (292,000 KIA). Revolutionary war was 80 (4,435 KIA). Civil war was 48 (184,000 KIA). And of course, vietnam was 90 (47,000 KIA). Compare that with Iraq, 45 months and 2,397 KIA.

 

I use KIA in my analysis because it is the nightly reports of violence and dead soldiers that lead the masses to believe we're losing over there. I don't see that.

 

However, I do believe we are losing right now. Losing as in being unable to stop the influx of insurgency. There's no way an american of any kind can stop an insurgency. There's no way to do it "right" as long as we are doing it. Since no one else will fight terrorism, rather than accept it as a way of life and negotiate with and empower it, we have no choice but to do it how we're doing it.

[Pangloss]

You say "hindsight is 20/20," but a) many of us predicted pretty much what is happening now, b) the public was misled, and so had different information to go on from the start, and c) nobody forced the president to keep pretending everything was going swimmingly ("Mission Accomplished," anyone?) .

 

ANYWAY, the nation feels misled, and they don't trust government, and Republicans in particular. The national mood is, indeed, pretty ugly. If not for Iraq, perhaps they'd still be in power.

 

I'm not well-versed in economics, but it seems an extremely occupation can't possibly be good, nor can going deeper and deeper into debt to pay for it. I don't know how much of an effect is has, overall, but I think it's safe to say that its significant, no?

 

I don't think long-term military capabilities have been harmed all that much. If we were to pull out of Iraq tomorrow, there would still be problems, like being understaffed due to recruitment problems, and, more seriously, there would still be the huge backlog in replacing equipment. We lack "boots on the ground" capability, which we would have if not for Iraq. We would have more forces dealing with Afghanistan properly, and could be more credibly menacing to nations like Iran. America's power in the world has suffered, as has its capability to deal with terrorism.

 

I actually agree with you for the most part, but I think it's interesting that it's difficult to be more specific than this.

 

Bascule has an interesting point above. Notice how you have to go to that level of detail, though -- you can't just say, for example, that there'd be no deficit, because the deficit dwarfs the amount of money we've spent in Iraq. But you could certainly make the point that the deficit would be much smaller. (And I have a feeling that there are ultimately going to be found many hidden costs associated with this venture.)

[Sisyphus]

A) I'm not sure who you're referencing here, but every conflict we've gotten into since vietnam has been been predicted by anti-war folks as another vietnam. Saying the same thing over and over again until it finally comes arguably true doesn't qualify as a prediction.

 

That's a fair point. Or it would be, if it were only those people making such predictions, and if the predictions were only as vague as "another Vietnam." But neither is true.

 

Also, you can always find people who predict pretty much any conceivable scenario, and after the fact somebody was bound to have been right. True enough. But it doesn't follow that they just "got lucky." The argument you're making is that nobody can ever predict anything. And if THAT is true, then what the hell is the basis for ANY decision?

 

B) The public was misled on what? WMD's have been found. And we know he had WMD's because we have the receipts. You're blinded by Bush hatred if you seriously believe Saddam didn't use the months and months of pre-invasion lead time to hide them. And terrorism is all over the globe so we could have invaded about 5 different countries and it would just about be justified.

 

Hide what? What has been found? Decade-old garbage? No, there were no WMDs, which is what the inspectors and the experts were saying, just not the "experts" who desperately wanted the U.S. to have a reason to invade. We were told Iraq was clandestinely buying uranium from Nigeria, which was the primary damning evidence that they were pursuing a nuclear program, and, frankly, the thing which convinced me. Thing is, at the time we were told that, the administration already knew it wasn't true. So yeah, that pissed me off. We were told everything was certain. Colin Powell holding up a bottle of "anthrax" in the United Nations. Etc., etc.

 

C) The mission most certainly isn't accomplished. But it isn't all doom and gloom either. WWII would have looked like a "vietnam" the whole time if you covered every horrible thing that happened. War is horrible. Every war is disgusting with losses on both sides. What do you expect? A food fight? I've posted the losses of previous wars before, so I guess I'll have to do it again. Just wish the news media would do their job instead of pushing their agenda...

 

No, war is horrible. Duh. But Bush seemed to think it would be a food fight, and only very recently has started admitting that it isn't, really. For three years it was, "we're almost done!"

 

So, 19 times as many soldiers will have to die before it matches that of vietnam. Vietnam was 7.5 years in length. The math just doesn't support that this is another vietnam, not even close. There are only 4 wars in this list that meet or exceed the time we have spent in Iraq. I count 45 months in Iraq. WWII was 44 (292,000 KIA). Revolutionary war was 80 (4,435 KIA). Civil war was 48 (184,000 KIA). And of course, vietnam was 90 (47,000 KIA). Compare that with Iraq, 45 months and 2,397 KIA.

 

I don't know what point you're trying to make. Yeah, American casualities have been far less than other wars. So?

 

I use KIA in my analysis because it is the nightly reports of violence and dead soldiers that lead the masses to believe we're losing over there. I don't see that.

 

It's not that. It's that things are getting worse instead of better.

 

However, I do believe we are losing right now. Losing as in being unable to stop the influx of insurgency. There's no way an american of any kind can stop an insurgency. There's no way to do it "right" as long as we are doing it. Since no one else will fight terrorism, rather than accept it as a way of life and negotiate with and empower it, we have no choice but to do it how we're doing it.

 

Why don't we have a choice? If Americans can't stop an insurgency, then why are we still there?

[ParanoiA]

Hide what? What has been found? Decade-old garbage? No, there were no WMDs, which is what the inspectors and the experts were saying, just not the "experts" who desperately wanted the U.S. to have a reason to invade. We were told Iraq was clandestinely buying uranium from Nigeria, which was the primary damning evidence that they were pursuing a nuclear program, and, frankly, the thing which convinced me. Thing is, at the time we were told that, the administration already knew it wasn't true. So yeah, that pissed me off. We were told everything was certain. Colin Powell holding up a bottle of "anthrax" in the United Nations. Etc., etc.

 

This is why I never agreed with the idea of WMD's as an excuse for re-invasion. We had at least 9 valid reasons to resume war with Iraq - WMD's should have been fringe validation only. Nevertheless, are you saying Saddam just simply used up all of the WMD's we sold him and didn't want any more? Come on, that's insane. Saddam was a dangerous SOB, and Ahmadinejad is too. It doesn't make lying ok, but I think it was more distrust of the UN and anti-war governments that led them to believe they were on the right track regardless. Is the CIA not accountable for anything here?

 

No, war is horrible. Duh. But Bush seemed to think it would be a food fight, and only very recently has started admitting that it isn't, really. For three years it was, "we're almost done!"

 

Sisyphus, this is total crap. You know better than that. We were told over and over again - repeatedly day after freaking day - that this was going to be a long process and to stay the course. Where do you think all of the animosity surrounding the phrase 'stay the course' comes from? The MEDIA and the DEMOCRATS expected it to be a food fight - the military, Rumsfeld and company, and Bush, all made it clear that this would be a long struggle.

 

Now, I don't think even they expected it to go this long, and I do think they are somewhat shocked at the state of affairs - but they never declared victory. CNN may have. MSNBC may have. But those with a shred of common sense did not.

 

It's not that. It's that things are getting worse instead of better.

 

For you, maybe. I said the masses. Most people perceive it's getting worse instead of better because of the nightly reports of bombs and so forth. I don't think there's been a single conflict on the globe since WWI that didn't have bombs in it. So, tell me this...when did it get better instead of worse in WWII? When we were losing soldiers fighting the relentless japanese, island hopping - the worst losses of WWII, the bloodiest battles - all at the END of the war - was better rather than worse? How would CNN and MSNBC have reported those battles?

 

See, I submit that the doom and gloom is fostered by the lack of desire for war in the first place. Not that I blame anybody for that. But, when your country goes to war, against what you believe is right or correct, then you will look for and interpret everything to support your POV. However, when you look at this objectively, this is probably one of the most successful wars we've ever fought - successful in that we have a low casualty rate and highly efficient invasion and seizure. We just don't know how to build governments and force them on people without dealing with a massive insurgency - hence the long drawn out struggle echoed by the administration, repeatedly.

 

Why don't we have a choice? If Americans can't stop an insurgency, then why are we still there?

 

Because no one else will do it. It's better to have a permanent insurgency in Iraq for decades to come than it is to ignore Iraq altogether and to have allowed them to develop WMD's and sell them to one or more of the 300 million Arabs that hate us. You really think that over the next 100 years, that not a single Arab state would do that? The more you think about it, the more it should scare you. It's not hard to terrorize. It's surprisingly easy. WMD's even hinted about is unacceptable.

 

And for those who believe we've made terrorism worse, how on earth could we have made it better? If we didn't invade Iraq, they would still attack us. We were not in Iraq on 9/11. We were not in Afghanistan on 9/11. We weren't at war with anyone on 9/11. But they were at war with us since the 70's.

 

We're still there because we can't turn our back on a mess we created - a necessary mess in my mind, but a mess nonetheless.

 

cool, I just made up a mild tongue twister....'a necessary mess but a mess nonetheless' - say that 5 times

[Mokele]

We were told over and over again - repeatedly day after freaking day - that this was going to be a long process and to stay the course. Where do you think all of the animosity surrounding the phrase 'stay the course' comes from? The MEDIA and the DEMOCRATS expected it to be a food fight - the military, Rumsfeld and company, and Bush, all made it clear that this would be a long struggle.

 

Funny, I seem to remember a certain someone standing in front of a 'Mission Accomplished' banner openly proclaiming 'the end of major combat operations'.

 

However, when you look at this objectively, this is probably one of the most successful wars we've ever fought - successful in that we have a low casualty rate and highly efficient invasion and seizure. We just don't know how to build governments and force them on people without dealing with a massive insurgency - hence the long drawn out struggle echoed by the administration, repeatedly.

 

Yay, I'm a brilliant professor!

 

After all, I've successfully gotten my undergrad degree and moved on to grad school. Sure, I haven't actually published anything yet, and that is the actual goal of a research scientist, but I did the easy parts already, so I'll just call it a success on the whole!

 

Seriously, that argument holds *no* water. We have the most technologically advanced military in all of history. Claims of success because we conquered a country running on technology 50 years old at best with minimal casualties ring shallow for good reason. Yes, we did the easy part. And so far, we've failed miserably at the second, harder part. That's success?

 

Your argument is a peculiar hybrid of the fallacies of equivocation and circular reasoning. We claim no success, because we've failed to create a stable government in the aftermath of an exceptionally one-sided fight. You claim success, then you change the definition so it's defined in terms favorable to your proclamation.

 

It's better to have a permanent insurgency in Iraq for decades to come than it is to ignore Iraq altogether and to have allowed them to develop WMD's

 

Is it? Let's take a look. At the beginning, there's some terrorists, and several countries with varying WMD capacity. We invade one of the *least* WMD-capable countries, destroying no real WMD-construction progress, and create thousands upon thousands of new terrorists.

 

Not to mention that you yourself state that you believe it should have only been a 'fringe reason'.

 

If we didn't invade Iraq, they would still attack us.

 

With what, the mythical WMDs? IIRC, Iraq was found to have *no* terrorist ties; it's an entirely separate issue.

 

Mokele

[Ndi]

[...] particularly conflicts, the best solution still hurts somebody, somewhere. Read about your country's history and you'll see what I mean Ndi.

 

I am painfully aware of my country's history, as I actually remember automatic gunfire in the streets. Unlike US, European countries, as well as a lot of other countries actually have citizens that survived a war raging over the roof of their homes. That is the reason why most other countries oppose war to the last possible solution has been tried, as ridiculous as it might sound. Because once a shot has been fired, there is no turning back.

 

For US, "war toll" is a bill and a few lives. For others, "war" goes as far as completely raised cities and country rebuilds, famine, you name it. That's why I'm bitter. Forgive me for not completely adhering to certain ideas, but we have a saying where I live. "A man who has eaten cannot understand the hungry". Trust me on it if you never went hungry. Thus I have difficulty accepting "just" and/or "necessary" wars from people with Big Macs under 5 minutes drive in a gas guzzling SUV that get "war" on cable.

 

I don't hate US for going to war ignoring the rest planet. I hate it for claiming the rest of the world doesn't understand their pain and just cause and the futility of talks. I can understand being uneasy that a neighbor has a grenade. That should warrant a search. It should warrant a forceful, skin search. But not an execution. Do you execute people in US because you "know" they are armed but can't find anything? No. What's the source of the double standard?

 

If I could make a rule, change the way things are, I'd make a rule in which the invader has to play host in a war. US want to invade -pick a country any country- Sweden? Great. All Swedish armed forces are moved to Washington and they fight there. I wonder how many Americans will still support the war crouching in a ditch.

 

I know this is a response to your post, but I find it hard to separate the reply from the rest of the post. Try not to see it as a directed argument.

 

[...]

 

I got beaten to quite a few of the things I wanted to say

 

A) I'm not sure who you're referencing here, but every conflict we've gotten into since vietnam has been been predicted by anti-war folks as another vietnam. Saying the same thing over and over again until it finally comes arguably true doesn't qualify as a prediction.

 

Doesn't qualify as false, either. What was that called, straw man? It is arguably not a prediction, but most were called Vietnam NOT because they were long, not because the enemy eats rice but because the gross mis-prediction of results and strategy.

 

Some people though they'd swoop in and bomb them all. Never happened. Enemy was determined, patriotic, ready to die. Noncompromising. A foothold and "peace" COULD NOT be obtained and if the goal would be to institute democracy and the Big Mac mandatory meal then the only result in the long run would be failure or many-year-civil-tension occupation at the cost of many lives.

 

And terrorism is all over the globe so we could have invaded about 5 different countries and it would just about be justified.

 

Sorry, you need a reality check. Or a head check. No way, now how, under any circumstances it is NOT "just about justified" to slaughter a SINGLE newborn for anything. You throw in "and approximate number of countries". What is this? Command&Conquer? Warcraft?

 

Sorry to be the thrower of acid, but it's all so superior-to-inferior thinking. If some citizen of your country, whatever that was came to my country and bombed something, would you still feel your death along with family and friends is just about justified because you harbor terrorists? It's not a rhetorical question. Would you accept your death, close your eyes and say "I am aware me and my wife/kid/whatever deserve to die because the area needs to be bombed. International politics has side effects and I'm it. Shoot away boys".

 

Every war is disgusting with losses on both sides. What do you expect? A food fight?

 

I expect EVERY possible alternative attempted. E-V-E-R-Y. Embargo, assassination attempts, elite troops pinpoint attacks, international coordinated, civilian-safe strikes. I don't care. Food fights. Anything before innocent life is threatened. Proceed as if that was your country.

 

I know I shouldn't go into philosophical debate here, but my stomach cringes when I hear "women now have the privilege of not covering their faces". Who is anyone to decide what's wrong or right? They've been doing that for ages, if they hated it they'd change it. Turkish empire conquered and converted because Allah was the greatest. Europe started crusading and spilling blood in the name of the cross (that's where Crusade comes from). We call that dark ages. Yet we now cut away guts and impose "free". We are now enlightened.

 

There's no way an american of any kind can stop an insurgency. There's no way to do it "right" as long as we are doing it. Since no one else will fight terrorism, rather than accept it as a way of life and negotiate with and empower it, we have no choice but to do it how we're doing it.

 

Ahhh, the bliss of justification by ignorance. Let me rephrase that.

 

I have to kill you. I know there are moral laws and legal repercussions, but since nobody will kill you, *I* have to do it. Every minute that passes you are a greater threat to me. I somehow know you are going to kill me so that justifies a personal crusade. Screw the rest of the world that thinks you have a right to live and that believe in rules and ways of doing things. Court of law is insignificant. Law itself is insignificant. Throw them away, they only exists for the OTHER citizens and the OTHER criminals.

 

Right. Ignore the complexity, oversimplify and your solution becomes the obvious. Where in the reasoning above did you even consider how things works for non-superpowers? Where's the equality of rights? Oh yes, we only get equality if we are friends. Dislike you and I lose my status as a sovereign country. Bush himself went live on TV and threatened the world to pick a side. Either help the 21st century crusade or join the heretics.

[Pangloss]

We're digressing. This thread has a point, and I want to focus on that point.

 

The question is: How would things BE DIFFERENT today had we not gone to Iraq? What, exactly, would be different, and how, specifically, would it be different?

 

Specifics, people. Specifics. I am absolutely going to beat this drum until I see a comprehensive set of answers like the small piece of the puzzle that Bascule provided above.

[ParanoiA]

Funny, I seem to remember a certain someone standing in front of a 'Mission Accomplished' banner openly proclaiming 'the end of major combat operations'.

 

Exactly. You think occupation and order, government building is major combat operations?? So what was the first few weeks? Super duper major combat operations?

 

Seriously' date=' that argument holds *no* water. We have the most technologically advanced military in all of history. Claims of success because we conquered a country running on technology 50 years old at best with minimal casualties ring shallow for good reason. Yes, we did the easy part. And so far, we've failed miserably at the second, harder part. That's success?

 

Your argument is a peculiar hybrid of the fallacies of equivocation and circular reasoning. We claim no success, because we've failed to create a stable government in the aftermath of an exceptionally one-sided fight. You claim success, then you change the definition so it's defined in terms favorable to your proclamation.[/quote']

 

No, I just don't pretend there isn't a difference between war and nation building. This was a successful war. The war part went very quickly with few casualties. Nation building is a new thing altogether. I wouldn't expect to do great at it the first time. In fact, I would downright expect to suck at it. Especially since the nicest of them still hate us. How was your first time riding a bike?

 

Like I said, they hate us so there is no way to do well. But nobody else has the balls to do it. Look at Spain - they actually kissed the terrorists proverbial asses and they still get attacked. Everyone just wants to be their friend and play to their victim status. This is an abusive relationship. They abuse everyone around them and claim all of their problems are everyone else's fault, while they do nothing for themselves but breed more murderers.

 

You also haven't considered the drive of the insurgency. The insurgency is so intense because they cannot allow the US to be successful - it jeopardizes every conflict from here forward. They will be quicker and more mechanical, efficient - it threatens the regimes in that region. Make no mistake about it, this is the most important war they've fought and both sides HAVE to win. That's why this is so polarized. And don't think you're fighting individual's hearts and minds - you're not - you're fighting the regimes of the middle east. Their power is threatened - and you know what happens when an unchecked ruler's power is threatened....

 

Is it? Let's take a look. At the beginning' date=' there's some terrorists, and several countries with varying WMD capacity. We invade one of the *least* WMD-capable countries, destroying no real WMD-construction progress, and create thousands upon thousands of new terrorists.

 

Not to mention that you yourself state that you believe it should have only been a 'fringe reason'.[/quote']

 

Yes it is better. Because we had to get a foothold, a focus point for terrorism. See, while the rest of you look at Iraq and shake your head at the concentration of violence, I see a plan working as it was supposed to - although there's no way to really prove that, I just believe it. I think Iraq was used as a double whammy. We needed to oust Saddam anyway, and it makes a great staging point for the other terrorist support countries - and most central of all, it directs terrorists to our soldiers on foreign soil rather than our citizens on our own soil.

 

Now, you can take issue with that plan, but I really think that was the purpose of Iraq. I think our history books will reflect that in the future as well. I do believe this is the war of wars with terrorism. The success or failure here will determine the fate of the rest of our dealing with terrorist states.

 

Oh, and yes I did agree that WMD's are more of a "fringe reason" because I knew damn good and well they would be hidden or moved out of the country. In fact, I actually thought we would find WMD's in the first week or so and everybody would say we planted them. That was my main reason for not supporting this WMD reasoning. There was just too much room for error.

 

With what, the mythical WMDs? IIRC, Iraq was found to have *no* terrorist ties; it's an entirely separate issue

.

 

I don't mean Iraq would have attacked us, I'm talking about terrorism in general. Iraq didn't give a rat's ass about us, really.

[ParanoiA]

That's a great post Ndi. Points taken. I'll reply later when I get more time.

[Mokele]

You think occupation and order, government building is major combat operations??

 

Judging by the death toll, it certainly is.

 

No, I just don't pretend there isn't a difference between war and nation building.

 

Fallacy, equivocation.

 

Define "nation building". Does it involve shit blowing up *every day*? Does it involve dozens of deaths *every day*?

 

The fact that we're in the 'occupy and rebuild' phase does not make it any less of a war.

 

Nation building is a new thing altogether. I wouldn't expect to do great at it the first time. In fact, I would downright expect to suck at it. Especially since the nicest of them still hate us. How was your first time riding a bike?

 

When I fell of the bike, thousands of people didn't die.

 

If it's something we're not good at, myabe we shouldn't be doing it. This is not a ****ing experiment, this is people's *lives* we're talking about. If you want to practice, go bring civilization to Utah. You do NOT gamble the lives of millions on some ridiculous ideological crusade.

 

Hey, I've got an idea. I think that if I set off a dirty bomb in New York City, it won't hurt anyone, it'll give them all super-powers like in the comic books. Sure, it's an idea that any rational person disagrees with, but you've already shown your willingness to sacrifice thousands of innocent lives in a 'learning experience'.

 

But nobody else has the balls to do it.

 

Maybe everyone else had the sense to see it was stupid. "The only ones with the balls to do it" can also refer to the drunken frat boy dumb enough to try to pull the rock out from under the running lawnmower.

 

Look at Spain - they actually kissed the terrorists proverbial asses and they still get attacked. Everyone just wants to be their friend and play to their victim status. This is an abusive relationship. They abuse everyone around them and claim all of their problems are everyone else's fault, while they do nothing for themselves but breed more murderers.

 

Whose ass did you pull that analysis out of. Last I recall, Spain *caught* the people responsible. Where's bin laden? Oh, right, we were supposed to forget about him after our total *failure* to find him. How the **** does the most advanced military in the world not catch a 6 foot Arab who's on dialysis?

 

You seem to have bought into this cowboy BS. Who foiled the last terrorist plot? Oh, that would be MI6, not the US. So much for everyone else being wusses.

 

You also haven't considered the drive of the insurgency. The insurgency is so intense because they cannot allow the US to be successful - it jeopardizes every conflict from here forward.

 

Gee, the other side wants to win? Holy shit, I never thought of that! Where would we be without your brilliant insights?

 

Have you considered that if the insurgents lose, they still win, since they can claim oppression and such crap? There's *no* way to spin this that doesn't result in *more* terrorists than before, not less.

 

Because we had to get a foothold, a focus point for terrorism.

 

Yes, it allows them to train all their new recruits in one place. We've become their Human Resources department.

 

See, while the rest of you look at Iraq and shake your head at the concentration of violence, I see a plan working as it was supposed to - although there's no way to really prove that, I just believe it.

 

Yeah, here at Scienceforums, we're all about just taking assertions on faith, without any evidence to back them up....

 

We needed to oust Saddam anyway

 

Needed? Why? Yes, he was a horrible dictator, but the US has no problem with that in other countries. If we were intervening on ethical reasons, we would do something about Dafur.

 

Oh, wait, Dafur doesn't have oil. Never mind.

 

it makes a great staging point for the other terrorist support countries

 

In case you missed it, we have a ****ing armada. We don't *need* staging points.

 

it directs terrorists to our soldiers on foreign soil rather than our citizens on our own soil.

 

Yeah, there hasn't been a single terrorist plot elsewhere since Iraq. They're all in Iraq. They haven't done anything in London or Spain. No recent plans to blow up a dozen airliners in mid-flight. Nope, they're completely contained in Iraq.

 

Now, you can take issue with that plan, but I really think that was the purpose of Iraq.

 

Great, that's our purpose. By yet another measure, we've failed.

 

How many meter-sticks must we use before we conclude we're in a hole?

 

Oh, and yes I did agree that WMD's are more of a "fringe reason" because I knew damn good and well they would be hidden or moved out of the country.

 

It's like religion: Oh, the WMDs are there, you just can't see them and have no evidence of their existence, past or present. Oh, that's because they were moved, although there's no evidence of that, either. Faith is a wonderful thing.

 

I don't mean Iraq would have attacked us, I'm talking about terrorism in general. Iraq didn't give a rat's ass about us, really.

 

So then why did we attack Iraq? I seem to remember another country, one with *actual* terrorist ties, name started with an A. Hard to remember, what with it being swept under the carpet in favor of Iraq. Something about us fighting terrorism, only not actually capturing who we were after.

 

Mokele

[bascule]

Yes it is better. Because we had to get a foothold, a focus point for terrorism.

 

But terrorism is, by definition, a thoroughly decentralized, ad hoc process, executed by a loosely coordinated network of independent cells. Trying to search for its focus point is like trying to find the center of the Internet, or for that matter, the universe.

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that the war in Iraq, or for that matter, the larger "war on terror" has done anything whatsoever to abate terrorism.

 

The other biggie "what would be different" I didn't state is international respect for America. I think America's image has suffered greatly in the wake of the Iraq war and particularly the re-election of Bush (itself a validation that this was a policy created by a man Americans supported)

 

I think the Iraq war has increased global anti-Americanism. I think it can be argued that increased global anti-American sentiment increases the potential for a terrorist attack against America. Think in terms of how few were involved with the 9/11 attacks versus the cascading, worldwide changes it caused.

 

I think the ability for a small group of people to cause massive worldwide devistation increases with overall human ability, primarily technological abilities. I have great fear that in the future some misguided person or a group of only a few people could wreak worldwide devistation which would dwarf 9/11.

 

To me, terrorism represents a small group of people who want to cause the largest, most devistating events they possibly can. They pursue creative techniques, evaluating the defense systems in place and looking for vulnerabilities.

 

They can come from anywhere. I don't think there is any defensible reason, especially in the light of 20/20 hindsight, to say that Iraq was the primary country to target in terms of combating terrorism, or even close to the top of the list.

 

I suppose my overall argument would be that America went too far by invading Iraq, and in doing so substantially damaged a sort of international anti-terrorist commoradorie that self-established following 9/11.

[ParanoiA]

Fallacy' date=' equivocation.

 

Define "nation building". Does it involve shit blowing up *every day*? Does it involve dozens of deaths *every day*?

 

The fact that we're in the 'occupy and rebuild' phase does not make it any less of a war.[/quote']

 

I guess it does doesn't it? Watch the news much? Tanks aren't much good at discriminating between innocent people and that one dude with a bomb strapped to his chest. Our soldiers go out in the streets, face these people, face to face, not sitting in Ohio doing science pretending the millions of crazy ****ers all across the world that are sick of your rich, arrogant bullshit, aren't interested in the shameful death weapons we've sold and trained to religious thug gangs that run an entire region of potential soldier fodder using their religion and propaganda. Quit being naive.

 

When I fell of the bike' date=' thousands of people didn't die.

 

If it's something we're not good at, myabe we shouldn't be doing it. This is not a ****ing experiment, this is people's *lives* we're talking about. If you want to practice, go bring civilization to Utah. You do NOT gamble the lives of millions on some ridiculous ideological crusade.

 

Hey, I've got an idea. I think that if I set off a dirty bomb in New York City, it won't hurt anyone, it'll give them all super-powers like in the comic books. Sure, it's an idea that any rational person disagrees with, but you've already shown your willingness to sacrifice thousands of innocent lives in a 'learning experience'.[/quote']

 

Too bad you can't burn calories jumping to conclusions like that. It's not a learning experience we asked for. We are not responding to terrorism the way the rest of the world has. We decided, instead of *****footing around with them, like you want to do, that we'd bring the fight to them. A noble attempt at cleaning up the bad neighborhood who's trash is so strewn it's made it to the other side of the world. That entire region is littered with religious facist thug regimes that starve their people to spend more money on killing people. No one is cleaning it up and all of those countries in that region have histories of appeasement and death in dealing with them, so we're doing something different. Sorry. We didn't ask for it.

 

Whose ass did you pull that analysis out of. Last I recall, Spain *caught* the people responsible. Where's bin laden? Oh, right, we were supposed to forget about him after our total *failure* to find him. How the **** does the most advanced military in the world not catch a 6 foot Arab who's on dialysis?

 

You seem to have bought into this cowboy BS. Who foiled the last terrorist plot? Oh, that would be MI6, not the US. So much for everyone else being wusses.

 

Oh of course, If I don't buy into the cheap liberal hype the rich corporate news networks blast in my eyeballs then I must be a cowboy conservative.

 

And why am I being directed to defend anyone on Osama Bin Laden? I don't know why they suck at trying to find him.

 

Gee, the other side wants to win? Holy shit, I never thought of that! Where would we be without your brilliant insights?

 

Have you considered that if the insurgents lose, they still win, since they can claim oppression and such crap? There's *no* way to spin this that doesn't result in *more* terrorists than before, not less.

 

Well yeah the insurgents still win, but these regimes don't. It's a loss for Iran, Jordan, Syria. Democracy keeps closing in on them. They are a major supporter and supplier of suicidal maniacs and weapons for the insurgency. Either way, we lose face via the insurgency. But the puppetmasters can't afford to lose.

 

Yes, it allows them to train all their new recruits in one place. We've become their Human Resources department.

 

I didn't say I liked it. I'm just saying it's obvious that Iraq is a resource drain for terrorist organizations. Remember the cold war? I'm sure you were probably pissing and moaning about Reagan too, but he basically outspent the soviets. That's how it was won. Big deficit and we'll never know what kind of catastrophy we averted. I think they're trying the same scheme here - outspend them in resources in Iraq and then turn it over to the Iraqis to run. Would also explain the lack of desire for a time table for withdrawal.

 

Yeah, here at Scienceforums, we're all about just taking assertions on faith, without any evidence to back them up....

 

What the hell are you talking about? If you could get over yourself you'd be more coherent. How the hell could anybody have any evidence on what the administrations plan is? I don't know of any leader of any country divulging strategic war plans to the adversary. I'm just making an observation and sharing an opinion. Just like you.

 

Needed? Why? Yes, he was a horrible dictator, but the US has no problem with that in other countries. If we were intervening on ethical reasons, we would do something about Dafur.

 

Oh, wait, Dafur doesn't have oil. Never mind

.

 

Yes. And did you know that food costs money? Oh those evil capitalist pigs. Yes, little one, oil is responsible for your whole way of life. You're typing on a major oil dependant. Our manufacturing, our economy, linked to oil like a lifeline. And yes, contrary to the romantic storylines on the scifi channel, we only get involved in conflicts where we have an interest. Sorry to break your starstruck heart. That's how we pick and choose our battles. That's also how you stay married.

 

In case you missed it, we have a ****ing armada. We don't *need* staging points.

 

In case you missed it, our ****ing armada is bulky, heavy, resource taxing, heavily manpowered pieces of machinery. You can't just buzz over to Iran or Syria on a sunday afternoon. Iraq borders two major terror sponsoring countries. Do you own a globe?

 

Yeah, there hasn't been a single terrorist plot elsewhere since Iraq. They're all in Iraq. They haven't done anything in London or Spain. No recent plans to blow up a dozen airliners in mid-flight. Nope, they're completely contained in Iraq.

 

I thought you were just bragging about spain. Why is spain having to thwart terror plots when they cooperated with terrorist demands? I thought if we listened to their plight and tried to understand them, that they would stop abusing us? Didn't seem to work for Spain did it? Or do you have any ideas of your own other than just a bad case of the GWB's?

 

I can't imagine Iraq would shut everything down that they do all over the globe. But, I think the resources these terror groups are spending in Iraq have to effect what's available for international plans. I'm just saying that Iraq does serve as a focus for their resources since they absolutely do NOT want the US to win this particular campaign. If ever there was a war to win for them, it's this one.

 

It's like religion: Oh, the WMDs are there, you just can't see them and have no evidence of their existence, past or present. Oh, that's because they were moved, although there's no evidence of that, either. Faith is a wonderful thing.

 

We have the receipts. We've sold them to him. We've watched him use them. We have satelite images of him moving them. We don't have a receipt from god. We've never seen god. We don't have any satelite images of him. It's nothing like religion.

 

So then why did we attack Iraq? I seem to remember another country, one with *actual* terrorist ties, name started with an A. Hard to remember, what with it being swept under the carpet in favor of Iraq. Something about us fighting terrorism, only not actually capturing who we were after.

 

We attacked Iraq because it would be easy to sieze, we'd be guaranteed access to oil, good strategic position, and easy to make excuses to start it. To end the war on terror, the administration believes you must have democracy in the region. We've tried to sit back and let it happen on its own and be tolerant of minor attacks here and there over the years. 9/11 was the end of our patience, and we have decided to accelerate that process rather than repeat the examples of all of the other countries that are regularly abused by terrorism.

 

At least, that's my take on it.

[ecoli]

And why am I being directed to defend anyone on Osama Bin Laden? I don't know why they suck at trying to find him.

 

Am I the only who's glad they haven't found him? If he dies alone in the desert, he's forgotten. If they found him and gave him a trial and he's executed (like Sadaam) then he's just another matyr.

[Ndi]

We're digressing. This thread has a point, and I want to focus on that point.

 

I'll try my best to touch both. First, the off-topic.

 

First, nice post Mokele - all valid points.

 

Tanks aren't much good at discriminating between innocent people and that one dude with a bomb strapped to his chest.

 

That's precisely why tanks are last resort.

 

 

That entire region is littered with religious facist thug regimes that starve their people to spend more money on killing people. No one is cleaning it up and all of those countries in that region have histories of appeasement and death in dealing with them, so we're doing something different. Sorry. We didn't ask for it.

 

OMG. Please consider, if they starved for years to make weapons to kill each other, how would they have ten times the recorded history of US?

 

Also, I know it's just your opinion, but shouldn't you worry when a single person deems "regions" as <whatever>? Shouldn't you worry that you make life and death assessments based on media reports and hearsay? Ever been there? Assume not. I'm not even saying it's not true. I'm saying you repeat someone else's opinions and assessments giving them momentum and validity by sheer size of followers. Remember, religion is nothing more than a huge ball of people who believe something with zero proof and hearsay. Billions make up such a ball. Agreeing with no checking does that. I'm not saying go check. I'm saying don't doom areas. Try to limit damage.

 

 

And why am I being directed to defend anyone on Osama Bin Laden? I don't know why they suck at trying to find him.

 

Let us list the possible reasons:

 

* They WANT to find him, but he's unfindable

* They don't WANT to find him.

 

I don't believe in invisible leaders. Sorry, it's just that -all offsets aside- how hidden can he be and still kick? Whatever, I really don't care. Really.

 

Well yeah the insurgents still win, but these regimes don't. It's a loss for Iran, Jordan, Syria. Democracy keeps closing in on them. They are a major supporter and supplier of suicidal maniacs and weapons for the insurgency.

 

I know I'm rude and insensitive, but two people meet on the battlefield. Both ready to die, bot armed with the best their country has to offer. One is a martyr patriot, the other is a maniacal suicidal scum. Which one?

 

All they have is handweapons and explosives. What would YOU use on a tank or large group of people? A Glock? Heck, if I die for my country I'm taking as many bastards with me as I can.

 

Now you see what you did by invading? Terrorist that need be shot are now soldiers defending children. Bad move. This is the price of taking it "to them".

 

I'm just saying it's obvious that Iraq is a resource drain for terrorist organizations. Remember the cold war?

 

Haha. It's not how much you spend, it's how much you can sustain it. If it costs me a cent an hour to produce explosives and I get free martyrs, I can beat US. Heck, I can afford 10 wars on my salary and still upgrade my PC.

 

In Soviet Russia, Iraq drains YOU.

 

We have the receipts. We've sold them to him. We've watched him use them. We have satelite images of him moving them.

 

We watched them move them but we can't find them? Odd. Do you think we watched them dismantle them too?

 

Here's an idea. Let's paradrop some WMDs on China. We don't want them back, you destroy them. Then we come in search of them and level the country because WE GAVE THEM TO YOU. They MUST be around here SOMEWHERE. No, wait, China is large. Let's pick a country who's arsenal is not nuclear. Let's see ... (turns the globe)

 

To end the war on terror, the administration believes you must have democracy in the region.

 

That's my point. What if the administration decides my country also needs a spanking? There's bound to be SOMETHING unconstitutional in here. And if it isn't then we ARE the US and it matters not.

 

All right. Enough of this, back on topic.

 

What changed with the war. Pinpointed:

 

* Before the war, there were UN inspectors everywhere that could poke every hole, knock on any door, whatever. You couldn't have a gun under penalty of global war. Now that war is on, you can wave a gun at the satellite and show your behind. Weapons have just been justified. Armies have just been justified. You can no longer have the threat of 100 nations going to war with you if you don't dismantle them.

 

 

* Before the war, not EVERYONE was against US, even in the Arab world. Sure US was not the friend of all muslins, but heck, some did business with them. GOOD business. Some were indifferent. There was hope. Now? Well, you can see the picture.

 

 

* The war wrecked ALL of what was built by US in terms of international image, trust, appreciation of rights and freedoms, friends, etc. The international relations are a wreck and it's not just the war, but the things it brought. Who would have believed before all this that the US would deny freedoms to its people? Who would have guessed there would be strip-searches and no-charge arrests? Not only US showed it can make mistakes, it showed it can persist at the expense of its own people. That's a trust that will not be soon regained.

 

 

* And don't forget. The US was the best thing that ever happen to a terrorist. Three people in a garage with some explosives can only do THAT much damage. And no more. Match them to 6 billion and they are but a molecule in an ocean.

 

However, detonate this at the US and 250 million and one of the best armies in the world immediately throws you in the spotlight, international media, military actions, etc. Something you would NEVER EVER be able to do even if you had a nuke.

 

US has been the ultimate amplifier of power. Nobody negotiates with terrorists for the sole purpose of no encouragement. It's not the terrorists that terrorize. You don't get you phone tapped by terrorists. No terrorist can do that.

 

What idiot who does politics and international relations can't see that? The answer is: none. Nobody this stupid actually keeps a superpower's books. I mean, you have to shave every morning with a razor, you can't POSSIBLY be that stupid. Meaning, someone DID see it. The fact this would happen was KNOWN.

 

Pick a conclusion.

[Pangloss]

First of all, Mokele and Paranoia I'm getting pretty sick of you two responding to people's polite/professional responses with insults and slander (not to mention hijacking my high-concept thread). Knock it off, or we're going to have a whole different kind of conversation. I won't ask again.

 

Second, do I need to delete or moderate this thread just to get an answer to the OP? Holy mother of all battles, what is wrong with you people? Yeesh.

 

That having been said, there are some on-topic replies, which I appreciate. Let's take a look at a couple of those:

 

I suppose my overall argument would be that America went too far by invading Iraq' date=' and in doing so substantially damaged a sort of international anti-terrorist commoradorie that self-established following 9/11.

[/quote']

 

At least the last part of that seems fairly indisputable at this point, doesn't it? I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that our reputation hasn't suffered due to our actions in Iraq.

 

And don't forget. The US was the best thing that ever happen to a terrorist. Three people in a garage with some explosives can only do THAT much damage. And no more. Match them to 6 billion and they are but a molecule in an ocean.

 

However, detonate this at the US and 250 million and one of the best armies in the world immediately throws you in the spotlight, international media, military actions, etc. Something you would NEVER EVER be able to do even if you had a nuke.

 

US has been the ultimate amplifier of power. Nobody negotiates with terrorists for the sole purpose of no encouragement. It's not the terrorists that terrorize. You don't get you phone tapped by terrorists. No terrorist can do that.

 

What idiot who does politics and international relations can't see that? The answer is: none. Nobody this stupid actually keeps a superpower's books. I mean, you have to shave every morning with a razor, you can't POSSIBLY be that stupid. Meaning, someone DID see it. The fact this would happen was KNOWN.

 

Not precisely on point, but an interesting line of reasoning.

 

=-=-=-=-=-=

 

I'm still waiting for someone to answer the OP. Is anyone capable of doing so?

[Mokele]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer the OP. Is anyone capable of doing so?

 

Sorry about that; I just saw crap arguements and got carried away.

 

Anyhow, the problem with the OP's question is that it's hard to fathom all of the possibilities. Without Iraq, Bush's continued failure to find bin Laden could have tanked his approval rating and lost him the 2004 election....or, without Iraq distracting effort away from it, perhaps Afganistan would have become a perfect example of setting up a stable middle-east democracy, resulting in a surge in popularity.

 

Essentially, it's an alternate-history speculative fiction, with all the problems that entails, plus the complication that it's so recent we remember all the details, so there's no cheating with artistic lisence.

 

Mokele