Well written, as usual. Seems like McCain is handling Iraq more competent, but I still think any invasion would have been a great mistake in the long run despite Saddam being a horrible dictator.
Yah having Ridge instead of Rumsfeld as defense secretary and McCain listening to Powell much more than Bush did , as well as not having Cheney as VP results in Iraq being handled more competently .
On the other hand given McCain was in many ways even more Hawkish than Bush , I think Iraq still happens though having it handled more competently still is way better than what happened in OTL where we got an invasion along with it being handled extremely incompetently .
The invasion itself was a masterstroke and a brilliant work of military strategem. It was the resulting occupation that led to the bungled mess we have today. America would've been better off not getting involved in Iraq in the first and instead put all attention on Afghanistan, as the Arab Spring was in many ways inevitable and a strongman like Saddam, even if a monster, could keep the region in check and crush any group like ISIS quickly. It would've been better letting him die of natural causes or the Kurds finally getting to him then the US getting involved.
But that's my two cents, at least.
I agree that Iraq was definitely a mistake in hindsight, but the occupation I think was more bungled than it had to be due to Rumsfeld and Bremer .
The occupation was going to be a mess because no one had a sense of what was going on with the ground and the fact that we liquidated the Iraqi armed forces, something most occupying forces would do no matter who is in charge because it's just common military knowledge. As I said, America would've been better off in a 'Cold War' with Iraq until the Arab Spring takes away Saddam's might for the most as he puts down rebellions.
Anyways, I may not like McCain, but if he decides to abandon a fake ally like Pakistan for India, I won't shed a year.
Poll
