WI:Vice President Rumsfeld instead of Cheney?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What if George W Bush in 2000 selected Donald Rumsfeld as his VP in 2000 and made Dick Cheney Secretary of Defense?
 
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/19/us/dick-cheney-gupta-interview/

Before Cheney accepted Bush's offer to run as his vice president, he has said a team of doctors carried out a thorough evaluation of his heart.
This is to Cheney's credit. All the same, he had a pretty significant history of heart disease. This article says he had his first heart attack at age 37. Sometimes the first heart attack is the last, and a person's first indication of cardiovascular disease is sudden death, yes, really.

I can easily see Bush asking another person to be his vice president, reluctantly, simply out of health concerns.
 
This is to Cheney's credit. All the same, he had a pretty significant history of heart disease. This article says he had his first heart attack at age 37. Sometimes the first heart attack is the last, and a person's first indication of cardiovascular disease is sudden death, yes, really.

I can easily see Bush asking another person to be his vice president, reluctantly, simply out of health concerns.
Rumsfeld as his VP and McCain as Sec of Defense
 
While Rumsfeld is extremely hawkish, I think this would benefit Bush as Rumsfeld is far more moderate on other issues than Cheney.
 
While Rumsfeld is extremely hawkish, I think this would benefit Bush as Rumsfeld is far more moderate on other issues than Cheney.

I agree and would also state that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might be better conducted if Rumsfeld is not at the helm and his skeletal namesake doctrine is not the blueprint by which both conflicts are prosecuted.
 
By 2000 Bush Sr. hated Rumsfeld. That's not enough to keep him from being CIA director or Defense Secretary-but W. wasn't going to run with a man his father loathed.
 
I agree and would also state that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might be better conducted if Rumsfeld is not at the helm and his skeletal namesake doctrine is not the blueprint by which both conflicts are prosecuted.
Does skeletal mean trying to run the occupation and rebuilding on the cheap?

Also, announcing that we have turned things over to Afghanistan before we're really sure whether or not it's going to work out?
 
Does skeletal mean trying to run the occupation and rebuilding on the cheap?

Yes. From what I've heard and read, the initial invasions (particularly in Iraq) were smashing successes. 160,000 Coalition troops dismantled a military force ranging anywhere from 500,000-1,000,000 troops in size within 20 days and while sustaining under 200 casualties. 20 days. Less than 200 casualties. Yeah, the Iraqi Army was never renowned for its competence, but still.

Who knows how many trillions of dollars and thousands of lives we'd have saved if we'd gone in there with a proper occupation force-- or better yet, not gone in there at all.
 
the timeline I'd find very interesting, we go ahead and fight both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars,

but because of a few better decisions and a fair amount of good luck along the way, the rebuilding in both countries goes much better.
 
Not much would change, I think. Cheney would likely still be in a position of power, I feel, and he'd take advice from both similarly as he did IOTL.
 
Why did Bush Jr. appoint someone his father hated to be Secretary of Defense?
Rumsfeld's appointment demonstrated the countervailing influence of Richard Cheney on George W. Bush. Cheney was a strong advocate for his former mentor. The role of Defense Secretary or CIA Director is also much more of a subordinate position than the Vice Presidency would be under George W. Bush. The lesson George H.W. Bush had learned about Rumsfeld was that Rumsfeld was ambitious and untrustworthy. Given the historic relationship between Cheney and Rumsfeld-as well as Rumsfeld's age-may have convinced George W. Bush that Rumsfeld ambition was less of an issue. Still-the history between the elder Bush and Rumsfeld placed a ceiling upon how far Rumsfeld could go in my view. Bush Sr. may not have objected much to Rumsfeld's presence in his son's administration-but he would have objected if he had an even more prominent position. Unlike the handling of Iraq-Rumsfeld's appointment to the Vice Presidency wasn't an issue to which George W. Bush was so ideologically committed as to override his father's viewpoint. The relationship between Rumsfeld and the Bush family is a complicated issue-but I feel confident that George H. W. Bush's distrust of Rumsfeld would prevent George W. Bush from elevating him further than he did.

Not much would change, I think. Cheney would likely still be in a position of power, I feel, and he'd take advice from both similarly as he did IOTL.
The major question here-as with any timeline in which Richard Cheney is not George W. Bush's Vice President-is who runs George W.'s transition? The Bush transition was run by Cheney. Outside of the cabinet level-the administration was staffed by Cheney's acolytes. As a direct consequence the administration therefore shared and replicated Cheney's ideological impulses. These are not impulses that were inherent in George W. Bush's political philosophy. No matter how prominent and advisor Cheney may be-if someone else is given the task of staffing the administration the George W. Bush Presidency will be different in key respects. Without Cheney acolytes at OLC for example-you might see an administration that follows the Geneva Conventions. Without Cheney's control over staffing-Cheney's peculiar ideology of unlimited Presidential power and a disdain for public and Congressional input in policy making or even awareness of policy-making would be much less prominent. Cheney's authoritarian and anti-democratic impulse was amplified by his control over the transition. Take that control away and you have a different George W. Bush Presidency. Of course that raises the question of who runs the transition if not Cheney. If Rove is in control of that process the Bush administration will be staffed by conservative hacks-which could have negative consequences in terms of effectiveness-but there will not be an overriding adherence to Cheney's ideology. I'm not even sure Rumsfeld himself would appoint such dedicated followers of Cheneyism as Cheney himself did if he somehow was in that position.
 
This is to Cheney's credit. All the same, he had a pretty significant history of heart disease. This article says he had his first heart attack at age 37. Sometimes the first heart attack is the last, and a person's first indication of cardiovascular disease is sudden death, yes, really.

I can easily see Bush asking another person to be his vice president, reluctantly, simply out of health concerns.

What if Cheney died?
 

Anchises

Banned
quick question: Why was the relation between Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld so bad ? What happened between them?

the timeline I'd find very interesting, we go ahead and fight both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars,

but because of a few better decisions and a fair amount of good luck along the way, the rebuilding in both countries goes much better.

Without the grave mistakes of OTL Iraq could have been a much smoother affair.

1) Not dissolving the army and no Debaathification:

Working with the military brass and the Baath bureaucrats would have been the only way to create a stable foundation for a post-war Iraqi government.

2) No slash n' burn shock therapy for Iraq's already very fragile economy.

3) More troops for a proper occupation from the start.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top