# If 9/11 had never happened, would the war in Iraq have taken place? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 24, 2003, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747 "2003-07-24T22:58:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/1 "2003-07-24T22:58:39Z")
In a strange, twisted way, **december** ’s recent [thread about 9/11](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=199611) got me thinking about this. I’ve never heard the question phrased in this way. A what-if question: if the terrorist attacks on 9/11 had not taken place, would the war in Iraq have happened anyway? Or, lacking the increased paranoia and fear of terrorism and, in particular, of Middle-Eastern backlash, would any attempt to engage Saddam Hussein have fizzled out in a non-9/11 world? Apart from being part of the Bush Administration’s _prima facia_ justification for the war in Iraq, in the form of purported links between Al Qaeda and Hussein’s regime, 9/11 also caused a heightened sense of fear of terrorism in the United States and around the world, as well as increased awareness of goings-on in the Middle East in general. So, without these things, do you think a war in Iraq would have been feasible? Would the American public have been as prepared for it as they were after 9/11? NOTE: I am in no way implying that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated to justify a war in Iraq, or general animosity towards the Middle East. My question is simply one of curiosity; I’m wondering how much 9/11 afffected events that have occurred since then, particularly regarding the war in Iraq. No accusations are implied. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/2 "2003-07-24T23:24:40Z")
I have seen reports that the taking of Iraq and the divvying of the spoils has been planned and speculated on since the 90s by the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney. 9/11 gave the administration the impetus it needed to carry out the dream. Bush primed the country for a war in Iraq in his first State of the Union speech. Without 9/11, I believe that the inevetible would have just been postponed. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/3 "2003-07-24T23:24:41Z")
It certainly would’ve been a lot harder to have gained approval from the electorate for a regime change war. THere probably would’ve been support for some sort of more limited actions short of a full scale quarter-million-man invasion effort though. We could a bombed the heck out of them incessantly and indefinitely w/o much public backlash. I don’t think that there would’ve been any thing close to what happened w/o the September tragedies. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/4 "2003-07-24T23:43:18Z")
Yes there would have been one. By hook or crook. The PNAC got the man they wanted in the White House. Read some of the articles here written by several of the now Bush administration… [http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm](http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm) They would have found a way. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/5 "2003-07-24T23:44:53Z")
I dunno, **SimonX.** I think that if 9/11 didn’t happen, the Bush Administration would have been making the case for a war with Iraq even sooner. Heck, they could have simply used the same excuses (WMDs, uranium from Niger, mobile biolabs, etc.), and make vague references to Saddam possibly helping “international terrorists.” ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/6 "2003-07-24T23:53:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > \*\*I dunno, **SimonX.** I think that if 9/11 didn’t happen, the Bush Administration would have been making the case for a war with Iraq even sooner. Heck, they could have simply used the same excuses (WMDs, uranium from Niger, mobile biolabs, etc.), and make vague references to Saddam possibly helping “international terrorists.” \*\* That may be true… but the main question is, for me, would it have gotten as far as it could have without the concrete example of 9/11 to rest all the excuses against? **Reeder** , I’ve already read that stuff. I’m well aware that they _wanted_ a war in Iraq for a long time… I’m just not convinced that so many others would have bought into it so easily it 9/11 hadn’t come to pass. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/7 "2003-07-25T00:07:28Z")
It’s hard to say. The inspectors were no longer inspecting, and who knows how it might have played out if Bush decided to push the inspection issue. I doubt it, though. There’s no real evidence. Anyone who thinks it would’ve happened would have to come up with actions taken (not some report someone wrote somewhere) after Bush took office and before 9/11 that would show there was an intent to invade Iraq. Otherwise, you might as well be in IMHO rather than GD. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/8 "2003-07-25T00:20:10Z")
Before the WTC/Pentagon attacks, Bush was actively disengaging from the role of “world cop,” telling the Israelis and Palestinians to go work it out for themselves, for example. His primary focus was the economy (his version) and the restructuring of the military. (Rumsfeld was in trouble for having failed to win over the brass to the new model and pundits were placing bets whether he would last until Thanksgiving or New Year.) Wolfowitz clearly wanted an Iraq intervention and Bush announced during his presidential campaign that it would be a good idea to get rid of Hussein. However, I suspect that the original plan (such as it was) was to get the military on the road to the new ideal fast fighting force, then go after Iraq in the second term. ---
**Author:** ![Semp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/fbc32d/32.png) [@Semp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Semp)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/9 "2003-07-25T00:35:12Z")
Would Bush have had the political capital to push something like that, considering his approval ratings prior to 9/11? I really, really doubt it. He would have had to sell the country on a multi-billion dollar expenditure when the economy was (and still is) in the crapper, and he’d have to deflect criticism that he was just following in his daddy’s footsteps (not to mention that he’d get heaps of complaints that he was trying to inflate his approval ratings with blood). The only way I see it happening is if he gets Blair to be the point man, and I’m not sure if Tony would have been all that hot to do it without 9/11. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/10 "2003-07-25T02:07:46Z")
I think that for some people it’s difficult to remember how totally different the attitude towards foreign policy was prior to the terrorist attacks. I can’t recall seeing a single article, news or commentary, dealing with any aspects of American policy towards Iraq in the months prior to 9/11. Simply put, all Middle East issues were on the back burner at the time, and no significant percentage of the public would have been interested in making the overthrow of Saddam Hussein a high priority. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/11 "2003-07-25T02:51:35Z")
Prior to 9/11, the US was on its way to becoming a reclusively isolationist superpower tired of getting involved, and Dubya campaigned in that direction. In all honesty, I think “acquire Iraq” was on the list but not necessarily at the top or anything, and I think most of his original agenda was domestic. (He’s been putting some of it into effect quietly anyhow, btw). ---
**Author:** ![bugg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecae2f/32.png) [@bugg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bugg)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/12 "2003-07-25T05:54:27Z")
Your question is based on a false premise. The war on Iraq started before 9-11. The USA launched Operation Desert Storm on Jan 16th, 1991 and since that time not only has there been an absence of peace, but coalition forces continued to attack ground-based targets (many civilian) in a very generous (perhaps illegally so) interpretation of their mandate to enforce the no-fly zones in Northern and Southern Iraq. It must be repeated, again and again. We were at war before 9-11, it just wasn’t a good enough story for our media then. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/13 "2003-07-25T07:46:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bugg \* > \*\*Your question is based on a false premise. > > The war on Iraq started before 9-11. The USA launched Operation Desert Storm on Jan 16th, 1991 and since that time not only has there been an absence of peace, but coalition forces continued to attack ground-based targets (many civilian) in a very generous (perhaps illegally so) interpretation of their mandate to enforce the no-fly zones in Northern and Southern Iraq. > > It must be repeated, again and again. We were at war before 9-11, it just wasn’t a good enough story for our media then. \*\* Actally, we weren’t at war w/ Iraq. We have never been at war w/ Iraq. The president has just been authorized to use force.:smack: ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/14 "2003-07-25T10:44:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Avalonian \* > A what-if question: if the terrorist attacks on 9/11 had not taken place, would the war in Iraq have happened anyway? Or, lacking the increased paranoia and fear of terrorism and, in particular, of Middle-Eastern backlash, would any attempt to engage Saddam Hussein have fizzled out in a non-9/11 world? Administration spokesmen have said that their view of Iraq’s WMDs was based not so much on new evidence as on reviewing old intelligence in the light of 9/11 – i.e., the risk of an attack against the US. If you go by public statements, Clinton’s were as strong as Bush’s, but there never was a thought of a war against Iraq, particularly outside the UN. We now know that France never would have agreed to war against Iraq for the purpose of regime change. So, my guess is that if 9/11 hadn’t happened, we would not have gone to war against Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/15 "2003-07-25T11:06:46Z")
I agree. 9/11 changed our overall strategy for dealing with rogue states. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/16 "2003-07-25T11:14:54Z")
Can the people who are arguing that the Iraq war wouldn’t have happened without 9/11 _please_ take the time to read the documents that **Reeder** linked to? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/17 "2003-07-25T15:12:30Z")
**jjimm** , what did you find compelling in those documents? I note, for example, that Wolfowitz argued for the U.S. to set up a puppet government outside Iraq and then encourage revolt from within. He expressly said that sending U.S. troops to Baghdad was not an appropriate option. Since Wolfowitz is, arguably, the real architect for any Iraq attacks, I think we ought to consider his words. And, as I noted earlier, while it is _possible_ that Bush might have considered invading Iraq without the WTC/Pentagon attack, all of his actions prior to September 2001 were going in the opposite direction. He was in conflict with the military brass regarding the reshaping of the military and he was taking steps that made the U.S. more isolationist than interventionist. I could see the possibility that he intended to get his ducks in line in the U.S., then reverse direction and expand outward once the domestic situation was to his liking, but I see no evidence that he was planning an assault on Iraq in his first term. * * * > [@](#): > > I agree. 9/11 changed our overall strategy for dealing with rogue states. Oh, I think we had already taken steps to become rogue state long before the September attacks. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/18 "2003-07-25T15:43:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > **jjimm, what did you find compelling in those documents?** Two documents from 1998 (my emphases): > [@](#): > > In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. > > We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration’s attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, **including military steps** , to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > **I note, for example, that Wolfowitz argued for the U.S. to set up a puppet government outside Iraq and then encourage revolt from within.** The Wolfowitz plan as quoted in “How to attack Iraq” (no byline, but another page refers to this as having been written by Robert Kagan) involves partial invasion. > [@](#): > > There is a way to deal with Saddam that can work, and we’ve outlined it in these pages over the past year: It is to complete the unfinished business of the 1991 Gulf War and get rid of Saddam. Any sustained bombing and missile campaign against Iraq should be part of an overall political-military strategy aimed at removing Saddam from power. > > And as it happens, the elements of such a strategy are already falling into place. On Saturday, President Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act, which authorizes the provision of almost $100 million in military assistance to anti-Saddam forces in Iraq. The idea, as outlined by former undersecretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz and others, is to establish a “liberated zone” in southern Iraq that would provide a safe haven where opponents of Saddam could rally and organize a credible alternative to the present regime. > > This is not a plan for victory on the cheap: The liberated zone would have to be protected by U.S. military might, both from the air and, if necessary, **on the ground**. And that would require beefing up our ground and air forces in the Middle East immediately. But unlike a one-shot cruise-missile strike, the Wolfowitz plan offers a chance for a lasting solution to the Iraqi crisis. These 5-year-old documents signed by members of the current information make me think that, yeah, Saddam was doomed anyway. I concede that it would probably not have been the _same_ conflict without 9/11, but a much bigger, land-based US/Iraq conflict than the no-fly-zone status quo at the time of the presidential election was flagged 5 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![toral](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@toral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toral)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/19 "2003-07-25T15:44:27Z")
Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11 [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml) Says Rumsfeld hours after 9-11: > [@](#): > > “Judge whether good enough hit S.H. at same time. Not only UBL” S.H. is Saddam, UBL is Osama. There are documents from as early as 1997 showing Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle, and Cheney’s intent to conquer Iraq. 9-11 was simply a strong catalyst. Certainly it is questionable whether the neocon agenda would have been met if 9-11 did not occur. My guess is that it would have happened during Bush’s second term. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-9-11-had-never-happened-would-the-war-in-iraq-have-taken-place/190747/20 "2003-07-25T15:49:31Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally typod by jjimm_ > \*\*5-year-old documents signed by members of the current information \*\* _administration_ I meant, dammit. While I’m here, I’ll just say that the first document was signed by Donald Rumsfeld, amongst others.