The Ultimate 'What If': A World Where America Never Invaded Iraq by Robert Farley, The National Interest
Every player of the popular video game Civilization knows to hit the save button before engaging in the risky, stupid invasion of foreign country. In the case of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it became apparent after the first few months that the war was not working out as its framers had envisioned. The failure to find weapons of mass destruction was only the icing, so to speak, on the disaster of failed reconciliation, state collapse, and executive incompetence.
What if we had “saved game” before we invaded Iraq? What would America’s strategic options look like today?
Comments
Now for some additional counterfactuals:
1) Given the success of Desert Fox, Saddam Hussein may have requested more advanced air defense missiles from Russia after Putin came on board in 1999. China and Russia had both wanted to punish the U.S. after Desert Fox.
2) Putin still had SCUD missiles and at some point in frustration over Desert Fox and Northern/Southern Watch may have used them against Israel, Kuwait, or Saudi bases resulting in retaliatory strikes even greater than Desert Fox to include possible Israeli air attacks.
3) The 1996 air attacks by President Clinton on Iraq were in response to feared genocide of the Kurds by Iraq's moving army against Irbil. Perhaps another such feared genocide may have dragged us into a larger conflict. Unlike the current President, Clinton was not afraid to use U.S. power to halt genocide as evidenced by the 90's Balkans and the 1996 Iraq attack.
4) With Iraq's oil-for-food program being the sole method of overcoming oil export sanctions, gas prices would have been far higher in the years following 9/11 given no OIF and continued Iraq oil sanctions. Such sanctions would have been difficult to impose on Iran and Iraq simultaneously without further driving up prices.
5) Iraqi Shiites eventually may have overthrown Hussein on their own with Iranian covert assistance (given their own unhappiness with dual containment) leaving Iran sole access to influence of Iraq's government.
6) Russia under Putin assisted by China may have forced an end to Northern and Southern Watch and influenced the lifting of oil sanctions and inspections allowing resumption of WMD programs with more funds available to finance them.
I'm sure this just scratches the surface. A similar set of counterfactuals could apply to WWII if the U.S. had never gotten involved. After all, Japan and Germany never could have crossed the oceans to take on America. One recurring criticism of OIF and stability operations in general is the perceived cost in blood and treasure. What if we had not occupied Germany and Japan after WWII? One could speculate about a united communist Korea and launched attacks or influence of a Japan still angry at us because we didn't occupy and help them after WWII. Imagine the post WWII economy without power-house economies Germany and Japan on our side. Imagine Germany and the USSR banding together against NATO. See where I'm going with all this? Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. History-based counterfactuals with worse outcomes than we currently face are infinite in number.
Counterfactuals are fun, and I'll offer a laundry list of my own after this starter that illustrates that George Bush was not the sole President concerned about Iraq WMD. This quote is from Wikipedia reference about 4-day Operation Desert Fox in December 1998:
<blockquote>Clinton administration officials said the aim of the mission was to "degrade" Iraq's ability to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction, not to eliminate it. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked about the distinction while the operation was going on:[6]
<I>"I don't think we're pretending that we can get everything, so this is – I think – we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. […] [W]hat it means is that we know we can't get everything, but degrading is the right word."</I>
The main targets of the bombing included weapons research and development installations, air defense systems, weapon and supply depots, and the barracks and command headquarters of Saddam's elite Republican Guard. Also, one of Saddam's lavish presidential palaces came under attack. Iraqi air defense batteries, unable to target the American and British jets, began to blanket the sky with near random bursts of flak fire. The air strikes continued unabated however, and cruise missile barrages launched by naval vessels added to the bombs dropped by the planes. By the fourth night, most of the specified targets had been damaged or destroyed and the Operation was deemed a success and the air strikes ended.</blockquote>
Robert Farley is a big Navy advocate so this piece is no surprise. One might note from the same Wikipedia that in two days in December 1998, B-52s launched 90 air-launched cruise missiles no doubt from the same stand-off that could be used against China instead of using new penetrating LRS-Bs and exquisite UCLASS aircraft. Naval ships launched 325 land-attack cruise missiles, as well. Tactical aircraft bombed also. We also should note that Bill Clinton bombed and/or used cruise-missiles against Iraq two other times in 1993 and 1996 with another Operation Infinite Reach occurring in August 1998 against Sudan and Afghanistan with the latter being possibly a "Wag the Dog" situation since impeachment proceedings were occurring over Monica Lewinsky.