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

[Pangloss]

So we can't prove, or even state with demonstrable accuracy, that we're worse off having gone to Iraq, is that it?

[Sisyphus]

What kind of demonstrable accuracy could you possibly have in mind?

[Mokele]

So we can't prove, or even state with demonstrable accuracy, that we're worse off having gone to Iraq, is that it?

 

Ture, though keep in mind that applies to all such speculative exercises. I could probably, with a bit of thought, come up with an alternate history in which the US not getting involved in WW2 would be better. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have, only that it's impossible to fathom how all events will play out.

 

Of course, some possibilities are more likely than others. Most scenarios involving not going to Iraq would involve a smaller budget deficit for obvious reasons. But speculation is always speculation, and that I can invent a plausible scenario that shows very peculiar results really demonstrates nothing but creativity.

 

Mokele

[Saryctos]

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)

The 2004 election would have been very different due to the fact that there would be no "war effort" vote, because if we were only in was afghanistan* there would be very little anti-war sentiment due to very low casualties, no WMD talk, and no question as to terrorism links. I think congress would be a much closer race. There probably wouldn't be any defining issues, we'd be stuck on abortion and stem cells all over again, although immigration would probably taken center stage eventually.

 

- Economics

I think the economy would probably be doing better. Afghan war would still be pulling in the military contracts, oil prices would stay lower due to less threat to "instability" in oil rich areas. Stock market may not be doing as well.

 

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

recruitment levels wouldn't be down nearly as much. Perhaps more funding would be shifted to the Air force after it demonstrated complete dominance in the early parts of the afghanistan* invasion.(there was a really cool special about this on The History Channel)

 

possibillity of smaller invasions world wide to root out terrorist activities and financiers. Would probably have more public approval as well, the "weekend war" upsuts the anti-war crowd, but wouldn't hurt nearly as bad as the anti-Iraq sentiment.

 

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

mood would be optimistic, a sort of "what's next"? All of those resignations probably wouldn't have happened.

 

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

I think the immigration issue would have been dealt with much speedier, whether they did, or didn't do anything. I get the sense of extreme partisan seperation, and immigration was just another way to show your party "who's side you were on"

[Pangloss]

What kind of demonstrable accuracy could you possibly have in mind?

 

Any kind of logic that's generally unassailable or objectively apparent. Such as the fact that since the invasion countless thousands of Iraqis have died, which is both (a) a bad thing, and (b) they'd likely be alive today (were they not slain by Saddam or died for some other reason) had we not gone there.

 

 

Ture' date=' though keep in mind that applies to all such speculative exercises. I could probably, with a bit of thought, come up with an alternate history in which the US not getting involved in WW2 would be better. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have, only that it's impossible to fathom how all events will play out.

 

Of course, some possibilities are more likely than others. Most scenarios involving not going to Iraq would involve a smaller budget deficit for obvious reasons. But speculation is always speculation, and that I can invent a plausible scenario that shows very peculiar results really demonstrates nothing but creativity.[/quote']

 

Well I disagree and I intend to explore it further. This isn't an exercise in pulp fiction. It's an attempt to objectively assertain the relative value of the invasion through an exploration of reverse reasoning -- turning the question around, so that it's much more difficult to answer on a purely ideological basis.

 

Anyone can see that going to Iraq has had adverse consequences. What's harder is determining what would have been a better course of action. In short I'm demonstrating that hindsight is 20/20 and proding people to be more thoughtful and less ideological in their responses at the same time.

 

How are we to avoid repeating the mistakes of history if we don't fully understand what those mistakes were?

[Pangloss]

The 2004 election would have been very different due to the fact that there would be no "war effort" vote, because if we were only in was afghanistan* there would be very little anti-war sentiment due to very low casualties, no WMD talk, and no question as to terrorism links. I think congress would be a much closer race. There probably wouldn't be any defining issues, we'd be stuck on abortion and stem cells all over again, although immigration would probably taken center stage eventually.

 

 

That's a good start on the political angle. I think these points can be generally agreed-upon.

 

 

I think the economy would probably be doing better. Afghan war would still be pulling in the military contracts, oil prices would stay lower due to less threat to "instability" in oil rich areas. Stock market may not be doing as well.

 

Where would that money have been spent that it would help the economy?

 

Lower oil prices seems likely... does anyone have any data on what oil prices were in 2002? That would make an interesting comparison.

 

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning re: the stock market.

 

 

recruitment levels wouldn't be down nearly as much.

 

Are they down? I've read that they met their quotas this year, but when I read that the first question that leapt to my mind was whether they adjusted the quotas downward after the previous years' failure to meet goals.

 

 

mood would be optimistic, a sort of "what's next"? All of those resignations probably wouldn't have happened.

 

What resignations?

 

 

I think the immigration issue would have been dealt with much speedier, whether they did, or didn't do anything. I get the sense of extreme partisan seperation, and immigration was just another way to show your party "who's side you were on"

 

Very interesting point there. It's speculative, unfortunately, but I'd wager that with a little research we could buttress that point up quite a bit, especially if we looked into pending legislation in the 107th and 108th congress.

 

-------------

 

Here's another one: Pornography. The Ashcroft Justice Department was planning a major war on porn all through the summer of 2001. It was put on hold due to 9/11 and he never had a chance to pick up that ball again.

[john5746]

- Politics (international and US-domestic)

International - would have better relations with most countries, possibly better intelligence sharing. Saddam and Libya would still be problems, but we may have eventually worked with Iran to take out the Taliban more effectively.

 

Domestic - Bush would have concentrated on domestic issues more and would have more support due to higher approval numbers. May have possibly gotten tax cuts changed to permanent and maybe immigration issue addressed. SSI still would have stalled.

 

- Economics - Deficits would be less, economy would have been a little stronger.

 

- Military/Defense - Rumsfeld would have worked on reducing the size of the military complex, making a leaner, meaner terrorist fighting machine. More focus on intelligence, fast special ops forces, less general ground troops.

 

- Social/Misc - I think Bush overall would have had more "political capital" to spend and sway the moderate democrats as well as his own party to compromise on certain issues. I still think he may have been perceived as a failure, since his administration just doesn't seem to have been able to reach compromises on anything, even with his own party.

 

- Impact on other major issues/events - more focus domestically would have heled with Katrina and with homeland security. Katrina still would have been a mess, but better support afterwards.