Let me suggest that we do a little role-reversal if you like.
I think you’ve done a very good job of identifying a major obstacle [to our avoiding involvement in Iraq]. Please allow me to add to this obstacle, and then perhaps you could put forward a solution which still gives us at least a 50% chance [of avoiding involvement].
My obstacle — the neo-cons are going to play the courage card. In my view, misplay it. But they’re going to say conflict with Saddam Hussein is almost inevitable and sooner on our terms is better than later on their terms. And that it’s “craven,” or “cowardly,” or “wishful thinking” [take your pick] to try something else.
And to a point, they’re right. But there has to be a better alternative. And that’s my point.
And, your even better solution is . . . [if you choose to play along and you certainly don’t have to!]
I'd love to but unfortunately this was something that was 'coming' since the First Gulf War and most of us who were there KNEW we'd be back in a decade or less depending on the politics
The "solution" is that Gore wins at which point the Neo-Cons continue to block any possible action on Iraq while continuing to loudly decry the "Democrat lack of action" which they had been doing to the entire Clinton Administration. (Not that Clinton wanted to expand on Iraq as far as everyone could tell containment and sanctions WAS working but not enough to get Saddam out of power)
Once the Neo-Cons were in power the conflict was inevitable though without 9/11 it gets vastly harder to 'justify'. (So a secondary possible "solution" is to avoid 9/11, though to be fair it's not likely Gore would go into Iraq even then) It was their main talking point and "issue" for the entire Clinton Presidency and they had essentially talked themselves into a corner on 'doing' something once they were in charge. All they needed was an 'excuse'.
They initially got 'side-tracked' by Bush's insistence on an "effective" ABM system built which was Democrat opposed and presaged the type of opposition they would have faced sans the 9/11 wave of public support. Bush side-stepped that by initiating a BRaC (Base Realignment and Closure) to free up DoD money to put into the ABM system and withdrawing from the US/USSR ABM treaty but Iraq was still on the list of "First Term" goals. They had been and still were gearing up the propaganda for attacking Iraq with everything from mobile biological laboratories to hidden nuclear weapons production facilities and plans to "ship" nuclear and/or biological weapons into the US.
While this was not working directly the constant exposure from political and media sources was very much beginning to wear down the publics resolve for not getting into a conflict. 9/11 provided the environment of a general public fear with which they could plausibly tie Saddam to having been a part of or supporting the attack and therefore being a direct threat. The rest is history....
The only real option for NOT going into Iraq is either some OTHER crisis that clearly can not be tied to Iraq or Saddam taking front stage, (hence "no 9/11") or Gore winning.
Now if Gore wins they will likely back off on the Iraq rhetoric for a bit but will ramp up again as soon as they can be sure that Gore won't go into Iraq. At which point they will spend however long Gore is President calling him a coward and useless for NOT going into Iraq and tying Iraq as tightly as possible to 9/11 as the did OTL in preparation for the next election.
I agree there SHOULD be a "better" solution but this wasn't about solving any "real" problem in the first place and all about a Neo-Con position that had become policy despite having no basis in any reality. The Neo-Con position that "you can't wait till your President is in charge" was EXACTLY what they had been planning and doing since the aforementioned White Paper had come out and all through the Clinton administration.
Randy
