>>60562255
We'd almost certainly still go to war. As a Vice President to Bill Clinton, Gore was involved in the administration in increasing counterterrorism. Though Gore would've likely used more diplomatic efforts than Bush, he also was a key supporter of military intervention. For example, in the Desert Fox campaign in '98, Gore as he believed such military efforts where necessary if a threat was clear and significant. Following 9/11, Gore was a supporter in going to war, calling the terrorist attacks as an "act of war."

Gore, however, would've likely focused on a more limited mission in Afghanistan, prioritizing the defeat of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban; the whole "nation building" thing is largely a neocon project that never worked (vietnam and nicaragua).
Gore would've most likely, not invade Iraq in 2003, as while Gore was a supporter of war against Saddam Hussein in the 1990s, as stated before, he'd likely want to keep the military objectives compacted, rather than making them bigger and bigger. With no war in Iraq, a U.S withdrawal would likely occur in 2008. Gore would no longer be president, after likely serving two-terms, and the most likely president during this time would John McCain, as if Gore was elected, that would've been twice as democratic party-electee, and they usually do not change for a third time.

Now, with McCain involved it's hard to see if a withdrawal would likely happen. McCain was concerned that a premature exit could lead to resurgence of other terrorist groups. It's possible that McCain would pull a post-Germany approach, with the U.S splitting, or at least electing U.S-ran officials until Afghanistan security forces where capable of handling the situation. This perhaps, could lose him the election of 2012, as Americans where experiencing war fatigue, and with that being said the likely electee for 2012, would be Barack Obama.