Would President McCain invade Iraq in 2003?

As it says on the tin. McCain beats Bush in the 2000 GOP primary and then defeats Gore in the general. Assuming 9/11 still occurs, would McCain expand the war on terror to include both Iraq and Afghanistan?
 

Towelie

Banned
He backed the policy of rogue state rollback, so I would assume yes, he would. Then again, he might have found a continuation of the aerial operations over Iraq and more aggressive international sanctions to be enough to neutralize the threat.

I find it far more likely that McCain would back action against North Korea and Iran in 2006-07 than Iraq in 2003.
 

Towelie

Banned
What about with a Vice President George W Bush?
Bush had virtually no foreign policy experience to speak of, and would therefore not be an active participant in a McCain administration's foreign policy deliberations.

The only areas I can see him having a hand are with aid to Africa, which he was particularly passionate about, and maybe relations with certain Latin American countries.

In general, though, W.'s influence on McCain would be on domestic issues like bilingual education and federal testing standards, as well as pursuing pro-energy policies.
 

missouribob

Banned
No I don't think so. I think McCain would have had a different cabinet and given his foreign policy experience would just apply pressure on Saddam but not invade. If I had to guess it would be more likely this ATL America invades North Korea or Libya due to WMD development that's ACTUALLY happening. Might even get a U.S. - Iranian War depending on how many butterflies we can produce by 2008.
 
It looked like Bush's Cabinet had a lot to do with Iraq, and if McCain had a different Cabinet, I imagine there would have been no full-on invasion. I don't even think there would have been inspections, though if there were, McCain likely would have listened to the inspectors and decided that, while Saddam was a huge asshole, he didn't pose a threat to his neighbors.

He may have struck against NK later on if they got unruly but that's about it besides Afghanistan and actually bringing bin Laden to justice instead of waiting for the next guy to do it. Incidentally, this may avert an Obamacare presidency unless the economy still goes to shit.
 
I find it far more likely that McCain would back action against North Korea and Iran in 2006-07 than Iraq in 2003.
Agreed. I take the view that it was probably Cheney who was the primary architect of Iraq, and he likely pushed W into it to an extent.

I think without Cheney, or with him and without W to push the "Saddam tried to kill your dad" angle on, North Korea and Iran are more likely targets.
 
I am not sure that McCain would start an offensive war with anyone unless there is serious provocation. McCain knows first hand what war means, both in combat, as well as spending years in a POW camp. He is not going to go to war without exhausting all other options.

Also in 2003 during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq G.W. Bush came to Fort Hood where I was stationed to speak to us. At the end of his speech he made a loud declaration that Saddam tried to kill his father, that has always stuck with me and I believe that part of the reason for the Iraq invasion was because of the attempted hit on Bush Sr.
 
North Korea and Iran in 2006-07 than Iraq in 2003.

North Korea or Libya.

NK later on

North Korea and Iran are more likely targets.

Could McCain get away with NK? Surely China would've had something to say about that?

I could definitely see Libya, the question is when? Obviously IOTL it was 2011, would McCain hit Gaddafi in his first or second term (assuming McCain gets two terms and Gaddafi's actions are the same as OTL).

Iran? That's a nightmare waiting to happen. I'm thinking 2008-ish?
 
As it says on the tin. McCain beats Bush in the 2000 GOP primary and then defeats Gore in the general. Assuming 9/11 still occurs, would McCain expand the war on terror to include both Iraq and Afghanistan?
I was thinking Liddy Dole or Mark Sanford. Certainly no VP Bush. Not in this TTL anyway.
 
Could McCain get away with NK? Surely China would've had something to say about that?

I could definitely see Libya, the question is when? Obviously IOTL it was 2011, would McCain hit Gaddafi in his first or second term (assuming McCain gets two terms and Gaddafi's actions are the same as OTL).

Iran? That's a nightmare waiting to happen. I'm thinking 2008-ish?

There have been any number of N.Korean provocations over the years that someone like McCain could spin into a war. I think China could be convinced to allow intervention in N.Korea, as long as they got assurances about their border and assurances about trade with a unified *ROK. As a side point, I bet people would still reflexively call such a state "South Korea" out of inertia...

With Iran, the obvious flash point is the Easter 2007 incident where they captured 15 British sailors. There are ways that could be escalated. And yeah, it would be a shitshow, even without Iraq (of course, without Iraq that incident is butterflied anyway, because the RN wont be there, but you get my point).
 
I find it highly unlikely that the Chinese will simply trust the US to keep North Korea free of western troops/influence after an invasion. A joint PRC-US invasion might be in the cards, but I still consider it a long shot.

Iran, 2007
Here is the real question. Would Iran allow inspectors in to defuse the situation? The is a real case here that McCain wouldn't invade Iraq if Saddam fully cooperates. If Iran cooperates as well (perhaps along the lines of the OTL deal) there may not be a reason to invade Iran. Ahmadinejad getting elected will have to be butterflied though. Another "Khatami" or "Rouhani" type figure may be willing to work with McCain.
 
I find it highly unlikely that the Chinese will simply trust the US to keep North Korea free of western troops/influence after an invasion. A joint PRC-US invasion might be in the cards, but I still consider it a long shot.

Im imagining in a situation where N. Korea does something like the 2010 island shelling, but a bit worse, and and the US and ROK feel compelled to respond. In that kind of situation China would likely be forced to accept the eventual outcome, in return for the Chinese being given favourable terms to help (re)develop the northern part of the new *ROK.
 

missouribob

Banned
I think through back channels the United States would need to allow three things for a North Korean intervention:

A. A Chinese buffer zone in North Korea
B. The eventual withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the peninsula shortly after regime change.
C. A neutral United Korea with no treaties with the United States

If I was China I don't want the United States to have a land staging area in any future conflict. United Korea has to be neutral or else we militarize the buffer zone as a DMZ.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
yes- the concept of Saddam Delenda Est was quite popular among Republicans at the turn of the century, and supported by a nontrivial number of Democrats.

With McCain's probable broader electoral mandate. And probable moderation on domestic policy and domestic politics, Democratic opposition to a McCain administration push for war would have been even less than against Dubya's.

I could definitely see Libya, the question is when?
The more pertinent question about Libya is "why?"

I am not sure that McCain would start an offensive war with anyone unless there is serious provocation. McCain knows first hand what war means, both in combat, as well as spending years in a POW camp. He is not going to go to war without exhausting all other options.

That cautious McCain died somewhere between the First Gulf War and the Kosovo War, by which time he was a habitual foreign policy hawk, as he has been ever since.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Also in 2003 during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq G.W. Bush came to Fort Hood where I was stationed to speak to us. At the end of his speech he made a loud declaration that Saddam tried to kill his father, that has always stuck with me and I believe that part of the reason for the Iraq invasion was because of the attempted hit on Bush Sr.
Yeah, the lack of a personal grudge against Saddam Hussein on McCain's part along with the fact that Afghanistan still needed to be fully stabilized would have probably deterred a President McCain from invading Iraq, IMHO.
 
Yeah, the lack of a personal grudge against Saddam Hussein on McCain's part along with the fact that Afghanistan still needed to be fully stabilized would have probably deterred a President McCain from invading Iraq, IMHO.

There is no fully stabilizing Afghanistan when the enemy is in Pakistan. A President McCan might have won the Afghan War without letting the enemy escape to Pakistan. Frankly the Afghanistan War was waged more stupidly then the Iraq War early on, but it had more international backing of it so they provided diplomatic cover for the idiot mistakes in a way that didn't happen with Iraq.

As for the question... yes not just yes heck yes the media was pushing the country to finally end it and Saddam was acting like a terror supporting idiot. America is not going to invade Iran when Saddam can support terror in the Sunni regions of Iran against us and NK isn't going to happen without SK wanting it to happen and they don't.

The real question is if he tries to do Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan as a package deal in 2001/2002 going partial war economy and major military build up and that is entirely possible. McCain might think a fair bit bigger then Bush after 911. Bush thought very very small after 911 with no military build up, no asking the public to sacrifice no plans for a big footprint, no getting the nations best and brightest together, etc.
 
Last edited:
Top