The question isn't whether a President McCain would have-in theory-have wanted to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
The question is how high a priority that policy would have been for him.
Many in the Bush administration were lobbying for an invasion of Iraq in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attack. Bush did not follow this policy but he did order preparations to be made for such a war early on in the Afghanistan war.
Paul Wolfowitz subscribed to what amounted to a conspiracy theory that accused Saddam Hussein of being responsible for every act of terrorism in the world-and therefore was convinced that Hussein was the party behind the attack-regardless of facts that demonstrated the contrary.
Bush was himself influenced by the Wolfowitz view early on.
Rumsfeld felt that because there were better military targets in Iraq than Afganistan an attack there would send a better signal than an invasion of Afganistan. Even though Iraq-again-had nothing to do with the attack.
This early emphasis was far from universal in the American foreign policy apparatus. The consequence of that focus was that preparation for an invasion of Iraq was well underway by the time of the Anthrax attacks-which solidified the Bush administration's to remove Hussein from power in the near term.
Thus-whether or not McCain invades Iraq in the manner and time period that Bush did depends on which individuals the McCain foreign policy apparatus consists of.
None of this is to say that an
Iraq war cannot happen-even if the policy of a McCain administration varies from a Bush one.
But that's the question here-not if there will be an Iraq war but whether there will be one that happens precisely the same way Bush's war did.
The anthrax attack will inspire some reaction towards Iraq on the presumption that Iraq might have WMD.
Any administration would have insisted upon the return of inspectors at minimum after that.
While that incident is mostly forgotten now that influenced the decision to invade Iraq and would have been on the mind of a McCain administration or a Gore administration-or even a Nader administration.
Even without Bush administration pressure the intelligence picture of Iraq would have been of a unstable hostile regime that might have WMD-at minimum.
If not a justification for outright invasion that circumstance would motivated any administration to demand upon the return of inspectors.
But would McCain have pushed for a Team B approach to intelligence about Iraq?
Would he have pushed intelligence to paint the most dire possible picture of Hussein's Iraq in order to sell the war?
In short-would his administration place the same pressure on the intelligence community to sell a predetermined policy?
Would his administration have been so focused on Iraq as to have key people advocate an invasion as a direct and immediate response to 9/11?
Would McCain have ordered General Franks to prepare for an invasion of Iraq while initial operations in Afganistan are ongoing?
Not knowing who McCain's foreign policy team would have been I can't be certain about how Hussein's overthrow would have been prioritized. And that makes considerable difference logistically and in terms of timing.
Simply knowing the McCain administration would have in principle favored Hussein's overthrow by military force in principle and military intervention generally doesn't mean that the invasion will happen in 2003.
Even if war was somehow inevitable McCain would follow the same path to war Bush did. Different administration-different personal-different priorities-different outcomes.
I could see McCain showing less restraint and getting the United States in Iraq in late 2001/early 2002-assuming that's even logistically possible.
The CIA wanted Bush to at least bomb Zarqawi's camp in Northern Iraq.
Bush refused to do so because he thought such a limited engagement would distract from his planned upcoming invasion to remove Hussein from power.
McCain might well follow through with the request-perhaps even going so far as to order a ground assault there given his historical preference for the use of ground forces over purely aerial campaigns.
Hussein might have reacted to such a strike-even though he only nominally controlled the area McCain had attacked.
Rather than the sequence that occurred under Bush the Iraq war might have an outline that looks like this:
McCain authorizes a strike on Zarqawi's camp-Saddam Hussein responds in an irrational pique by shooting down an American plane enforcing the no-fly zone after loudly denouncing McCain's actions.
McCain responds to the attack by ordering military action be taken against Saddam Hussein with the objective being to remove him from power.
This set of circumstances might be the closest you could come to an Iraq war that would have enjoyed widespread international support.
The downside to this approach is that the American military will be less logistically prepared for the war that early-which may limit the military's ability to project force in Iraq.
Then again if McCain is able to justify his action internationally in a way Bush couldn't he may have more luck in convincing other countries to provide help at least with the occupation than Bush could.
With less time to plan you may see a much more haphazard invasion and perhaps an even smaller American occupation force
I'm not saying this is what would have happened. There are a lot of variables.
I can't be sure how Saddam Hussein would have reacted to an American military strike in the North-or if he would have been foolish enough to react in such a way as to prompt an American effort to remove him from power.
But the general point is that even if an "Iraq war" occurs under John McCain the path to war might look different than what occurred under Bush and might occur on a different time table either earlier or later.
Assuming-however unlikely-the scenario I described happens-and assuming McCain can cobble together a proper occupying force-I could see a world where Iraq is a relative success and the John McCain equivalent to Bush's war in Iraq is a war with Iran in 2006/2007.
The question is how high a priority that policy would have been for him.
Many in the Bush administration were lobbying for an invasion of Iraq in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attack. Bush did not follow this policy but he did order preparations to be made for such a war early on in the Afghanistan war.
Paul Wolfowitz subscribed to what amounted to a conspiracy theory that accused Saddam Hussein of being responsible for every act of terrorism in the world-and therefore was convinced that Hussein was the party behind the attack-regardless of facts that demonstrated the contrary.
Bush was himself influenced by the Wolfowitz view early on.
Rumsfeld felt that because there were better military targets in Iraq than Afganistan an attack there would send a better signal than an invasion of Afganistan. Even though Iraq-again-had nothing to do with the attack.
This early emphasis was far from universal in the American foreign policy apparatus. The consequence of that focus was that preparation for an invasion of Iraq was well underway by the time of the Anthrax attacks-which solidified the Bush administration's to remove Hussein from power in the near term.
Thus-whether or not McCain invades Iraq in the manner and time period that Bush did depends on which individuals the McCain foreign policy apparatus consists of.
None of this is to say that an
Iraq war cannot happen-even if the policy of a McCain administration varies from a Bush one.
But that's the question here-not if there will be an Iraq war but whether there will be one that happens precisely the same way Bush's war did.
The anthrax attack will inspire some reaction towards Iraq on the presumption that Iraq might have WMD.
Any administration would have insisted upon the return of inspectors at minimum after that.
While that incident is mostly forgotten now that influenced the decision to invade Iraq and would have been on the mind of a McCain administration or a Gore administration-or even a Nader administration.
Even without Bush administration pressure the intelligence picture of Iraq would have been of a unstable hostile regime that might have WMD-at minimum.
If not a justification for outright invasion that circumstance would motivated any administration to demand upon the return of inspectors.
But would McCain have pushed for a Team B approach to intelligence about Iraq?
Would he have pushed intelligence to paint the most dire possible picture of Hussein's Iraq in order to sell the war?
In short-would his administration place the same pressure on the intelligence community to sell a predetermined policy?
Would his administration have been so focused on Iraq as to have key people advocate an invasion as a direct and immediate response to 9/11?
Would McCain have ordered General Franks to prepare for an invasion of Iraq while initial operations in Afganistan are ongoing?
Not knowing who McCain's foreign policy team would have been I can't be certain about how Hussein's overthrow would have been prioritized. And that makes considerable difference logistically and in terms of timing.
Simply knowing the McCain administration would have in principle favored Hussein's overthrow by military force in principle and military intervention generally doesn't mean that the invasion will happen in 2003.
Even if war was somehow inevitable McCain would follow the same path to war Bush did. Different administration-different personal-different priorities-different outcomes.
I could see McCain showing less restraint and getting the United States in Iraq in late 2001/early 2002-assuming that's even logistically possible.
The CIA wanted Bush to at least bomb Zarqawi's camp in Northern Iraq.
Bush refused to do so because he thought such a limited engagement would distract from his planned upcoming invasion to remove Hussein from power.
McCain might well follow through with the request-perhaps even going so far as to order a ground assault there given his historical preference for the use of ground forces over purely aerial campaigns.
Hussein might have reacted to such a strike-even though he only nominally controlled the area McCain had attacked.
Rather than the sequence that occurred under Bush the Iraq war might have an outline that looks like this:
McCain authorizes a strike on Zarqawi's camp-Saddam Hussein responds in an irrational pique by shooting down an American plane enforcing the no-fly zone after loudly denouncing McCain's actions.
McCain responds to the attack by ordering military action be taken against Saddam Hussein with the objective being to remove him from power.
This set of circumstances might be the closest you could come to an Iraq war that would have enjoyed widespread international support.
The downside to this approach is that the American military will be less logistically prepared for the war that early-which may limit the military's ability to project force in Iraq.
Then again if McCain is able to justify his action internationally in a way Bush couldn't he may have more luck in convincing other countries to provide help at least with the occupation than Bush could.
With less time to plan you may see a much more haphazard invasion and perhaps an even smaller American occupation force
I'm not saying this is what would have happened. There are a lot of variables.
I can't be sure how Saddam Hussein would have reacted to an American military strike in the North-or if he would have been foolish enough to react in such a way as to prompt an American effort to remove him from power.
But the general point is that even if an "Iraq war" occurs under John McCain the path to war might look different than what occurred under Bush and might occur on a different time table either earlier or later.
Assuming-however unlikely-the scenario I described happens-and assuming McCain can cobble together a proper occupying force-I could see a world where Iraq is a relative success and the John McCain equivalent to Bush's war in Iraq is a war with Iran in 2006/2007.