President John McCain

[Adam Parsons]

I was considering doing a "President Gore" thread, but chose not to since a) it's been done, and b) would probably start another left-wing/right-wing fistfight. So here we go...

Suppose that in mid-2000, McCain beats out Bush at the Republican primary. He runs a smooth campaign, sweeping the Republicans to victory late in the year, without the need for shady dealings in Florida. How does this develop?

 

[Xen]

McCain easily beats Gore so there is no huge emberracement in 2000 elections and no court appointed President.

The economy suffers slightly in 2001 but takes a huge hit on September 11. McCain is cool and level-headed leading the nation though the trying time. Afghanistan goes pretty much the same as OTL, where things go differently would be the issue of Iraq. McCain would likely avoid the Axis of Evil Speech, but stand firm on the War on Terror, making it clear the US wouldn't tolerate any regime allowing terrorists to use their land as training camps. Without naming names, Libya, Iran, Iraq and Syria feel his pressure.

How will McCain handle Iraq is the real question. He supported the war, and could very well be persuaded to oust Saddam himself. However he would look alot smarter in his efforts to convince others the war is necessary, and might not have as itchy of a trigger finger. The inspections run a longer course, and most likely would hit a snag or two, maybe something really big develops with tensions between Iraq and the inspectors. Saddam isn't likely to order them to leave the country if he knows the US will roll in, but if he believes he has something to hide he can make things hard on them. Perhaps McCain can work with Russia, France, and Britain in an effort to oust Saddam via a coup of some sort. If it works Saddam is out of power, if it fails Saddam will probably believe its because the US is using the weapons inspectors as a distraction and kick them out, then what can the world say about the war? Some will still protest it still, but with him kicking the inspectors out it would be harder to believe the US is lying about WMD.

The US and its allies, possibly including France. Russia and China would abstain on the UNSC vote, France will either go in favor of the US or abstain themselves and the US has UN endorsement to act in Iraq. After the war it becomes a UN led effort, with troops from all over relieving American and British soldiers. There will still be some attacks in post war Iraq against Coalition troops, but less as the UN wont have a retired US General as the Governor of Iraq, and would probably even have an Iraqi transitional government in place right after the fall of Baghdad or perhaps even before the invasion. The Iraqi Army is downsized but not disbanded and helps with the UN led coalition in rebuildling Iraq. Things go much smoother.

Of course there is no way of knowing all this, I just dont think McCain would have as itchy of a trigger finger as Dubya did.

 

[Beck Reilly]

Actually, I think the biggest change will come with the way a President McCain would handle the situation in North Korea. By far a more important issue than George's takedown of Iraq, the situation in North Korea has been shoved into the background by the younger Bush's administration. No matter what he did, McCain would do more about North Korea than George.

There was no reason for the immediate takedown of Iraq and, thus, nothing would happen except for a few grumblings in Washington about Hussein. The war, however, was most likely inevitable in the long run (we weren't about to let either Uday or Qusay seize power following Saddam's death, they were more insane than the old man himself). However, the war would almost certainly not be over oil, revenge, or money for friends (as these were the most probable unstated reasons for the war in OTL). It would not be over WMD's as Iraq most likely did not have any, as we have needlessly wasted the lives of 500+ American soldiers, plus scores of British, Italian, Australian, and Spanish troops and diplomats, to find out. Nor would it have been over Al Qaeda, as the former Iraqi leader was found to have no connections with the terrorist group. It, instead, would probably have been over something more mundane, like the justified reasons for the US bombing of Iraq in 1998 or the First Gulf War. It also may have come at the time of Husseins death, most likely anywhere from 5 to 15 years. No, I don't think the Second Gulf War, which would have gained the support of the UN, would have occurred until AT LEAST 2005.

However, we may very well have been in a war in Asia, or participating in a blockade of North Korea, as we cannot, and are at the moment, ignoring the nuclear weapons under development in the communist nation. We may very well have seen a Second Korean War by this time. With international cooperation, a war in Korea may look like a modern version of the First Korean War in the 1950s.

 

[Xen]

Good points Walter, however any blockade, or sanctions placed on North Korea would result in war. Kim Jung-Il has already made this very clear. He is really crazier than Saddam and has much more dangerous capabalities. However any war with North Korea would have alot more casualties than Iraq.

The Democrats will likely accuse the McCain adminstration of abandoning the War on Terror to focus on North Korea, and adjactating China (which would most likely give alot of meaningless lip) while we should be focusing on the hunt for Osama and the dangers of people like Saddam Hussein who is hiding alot of WOMD. In fact I can almost guarantee you, that is what McCain would have to put up with from the Democrats had he went to war with NK.

 

[Beck Reilly]

Good points Walter, however any blockade, or sanctions placed on North Korea would result in war. Kim Jung-Il has already made this very clear. He is really crazier than Saddam and has much more dangerous capabalities.

That's the whole point. We need to stop a nutcase like him BEFORE he has nuclear weapons, otherwise it'll be too late. We have to deal with that situation. You can't just put it on the back burner while he merrily makes nuclear bombs.

However any war with North Korea would have alot more casualties than Iraq.

Regrettable, but necessary compared to the situation in Iraq. What's happening in North Korea is by far more dangerous that what was happening in Iraq, especially since we have our tech. interests in South Korea and Japan.

The bad part: China would most likely be sucked into this war. As the growing superpower in the region, the PRC considers Korea their interest, as the US considers the Caribbean its backyard. Might we see the Chinese saying, "The big blue dog is digging in our backyard and we ARE justified in shooting it," to misquote an American military hero.

But, I do believe that a war with China is not that far off anyway, especially with the growing economic, military, and now space competition. Combine that with Taiwain about to declare independence and an American carrier in the Straits...all I can say is the lid is going to blow, and sooner than later.

The Democrats will likely accuse the McCain adminstration of abandoning the War on Terror to focus on North Korea, and adjactating China (which would most likely give alot of meaningless lip) while we should be focusing on the hunt for Osama and the dangers of people like Saddam Hussein who is hiding alot of WOMD. In fact I can almost guarantee you, that is what McCain would have to put up with from the Democrats had he went to war with NK.

However, with the likely international support to come out of a Second Korean War, the Democrats would sure have a hell of a lot less to complain about than they do now with the pitiful situation we've left ourselves in, in Iraq, Europe, and the UN. Compared to current Democratic resistance to the War in Iraq, I think Democratic resistence to a Second Korean War will be moderate.

 

[Melvin Loh]

Pres McCain

With McCain as Pres, wouldn't there have also been a total US troop withdrawal from peacekeeping missions in the Balkans and other areas deemed of less US strategic interest ? Of course, how would this redeployment of US forces affect the War on Terror since 9/11 ?

 

[Derek Jackson]

Maybe McCain would have taken more notice of warnings by the outgoing administration about Al Qaueda and maybe there would be NO September 11


BTW how would Enron have impacted on an America NOT hit by the 9/11

 

[Mike Collins]

Here's what I think would happen. Much of Senator McCain's support came from Democrats and so called "moderate" Republicans. As soon as McCain gets the Republican nod, his Democrat support evaporates as it was mostly a ploy to get GWB out of the race. Also, a small but noticeable chunk of conservative Republicans stay home. Algore wins and were back to discussing a President Algore Alternate History.

 

[carlton_bach]

The bad part: China would most likely be sucked into this war. As the growing superpower in the region, the PRC considers Korea their interest, as the US considers the Caribbean its backyard. Might we see the Chinese saying, "The big blue dog is digging in our backyard and we ARE justified in shooting it," to misquote an American military hero.

But, I do believe that a war with China is not that far off anyway, especially with the growing economic, military, and now space competition. Combine that with Taiwain about to declare independence and an American carrier in the Straits...all I can say is the lid is going to blow, and sooner than later.

But China has zero interest in a nuclear, heavily armed, unstable dictatorship knocking on its rear door. I'm pretty sure some capable diplomacy (how likely is that...) would allow the regional powers to find an accomodation when (or if) opposing North Korea becomes vital. I don't think Beijhing would countenance American occupation forces on the Yalu, but they might be prepared to accept South Koreans, and if the Chinese have a say in the postwar administration of North Korea and the terms of reunification (if any), they might even find it in their interest to support or participate in the toppling of North Korea. After all, without a nuclear North, the United States is much less likely to keep a powerful military presence in the south.

I know it's a dumb stereotype, but Chinese politicians *are* trained to think in decades and centuries rather than presidential terms.

 

[trendel13]

The main point I thought to McCain's run for President and one which I supported him on was Campaign Finance Reform. Having him in the White House may have led to a further ban on attack ads from third parties right before the end of campaigns. This maybe a major turning point in the process of elections as can be attested by the recent attack ads on George II.