DBWI: What If There Had Been No 1993 War On Terror?

[Mr_ Bondoc]

As we all know, a year into the second term of President George H.W. Bush, the World Trade Center was attacked by supporters of Osama bin Laden in a truck bomb attack that killed hundreds of people. This led to the use of military forces in Afghanistan in 1994. But this also led to the deployment of U.S. troops into Iraq in 1995, amidst claims of WMDs. This was followed by the Abu Gharib Massacre in 1996 by Lt. Col. Timothy McVeigh. Can anyone imagine an ATL wherein such events didn'y happen?

[rowmaster]

More and more attacks thats what, Terrorists attacking the US Navy, and the overthrough of our Mid East Allies thats what

[Anaxagoras]

Perhaps we would have been able to more effectively counter North Korea's 1996 invasion of South Korea, had we not had so many divisions deployed in the Middle East.

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

Perhaps we would have been able to more effectively counter North Korea's 1996 invasion of South Korea, had we not had so many divisions deployed in the Middle East.

But do you think we would have had the reinstatement of the military draft in 1998? Considering that the war with Korea and the Middle East drained national resources so quickly, do you think that a draft would have been made?

[Anaxagoras]

Well, we didn't have to resinstitute the draft until Iran launched its offensive against our troops in Iraq in 1998. If we hadn't launched the "War on Terror" in 1993, we wouldn't have been in such a situation. Against only North Korea, we might have been able to defeat them without a draft.

[MarkWhittington]

It was likely fortunately that we had to fight the North Koreans in the late 1990s, since it looked like they were months away from getting the Bomb. If they had attacked a year or so later, we'd have been in for serious hurt.

I cannot imagine any President, even Bill Clinton (who lost in 92 against Bush after the Juanita Broadrick revelations) would certainly have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. I know that peaceniks like to bring up McVeigh, but he was after all court martialed and executed for his crimes.

[Wendell]

One wonders if the Republican landslide in Congress would still have happened resulting from the 1994 elections in such a TL.

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Originally Posted by Wendell

One wonders if the Republican landslide in Congress would still have happened resulting from the 1994 elections in such a TL.

Well, the charges of domestic surveillance launched against President Dan Quayle in 1998 certainly made things tough for the Republicans. Even Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-KS) did his best to distance himself from the White House after the scandal broke out!!

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by Mr_ Bondoc

Well, the charges of domestic surveillance launched against President Dan Quayle in 1998 certainly made things tough for the Republicans. Even Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-KS) did his best to distance himself from the White House after the scandal broke out!!

The scandal was very bad. The fact that Quayle misspelled "surveillance" made it pretty funny, though.

[Rasputin]

The whole 'War on Terror' really just extended Republican dominance long after it was past its prime. If 20 years was a long time for the Democrats in the '30s, '40s and '50s, then I'd have to say the Republicans shouldn't have really been in power for even that long. 'course, I'm a big lefty, so I suppose I would say that.

All the talk at the time amongst the left of an 'evil Republican takeover' sounds pretty silly nowadays when the US is moving into the sixth year of Lieberman. Not to say that the Republican leadership didn't try to take advantage of a bad situation, in fact it's precisely because the Republicans did that the US found itself such a pariah, they were just hilariously inept at it. Here in the UK, the Tories were already on the arse-end of popularity even without John Majors' support for the US. Gordon Brown of all people managed to become the Labour leader and then the Prime Minister simply because of his anti-US stance. As far as I can tell, the right in the US lost a lot of credibility thanks to the debacle it landed the country in.

Which begs the question, really...without a WTC attack, it seems a little likely that the Democrats may have gotten in in 1996 (it was pretty close OTL). Would the right have lost so much credibility in that case? If anything, simply by virtue of being in power (goodness knows, Lieberman hasn't been one of the more stellar Presidents. If he tries to have "Grand Theft Auto" banned one more time...) the Democrats may haemorrage credibility. The religious right was getting scarily confident of itself shortly before Quayle's defeat. Might a more inward-looking US see the religious nuts' rise a little higher in stature?

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

The whole 'War on Terror' really just extended Republican dominance long after it was past its prime. If 20 years was a long time for the Democrats in the '30s, '40s and '50s, then I'd have to say the Republicans shouldn't have really been in power for even that long. 'course, I'm a big lefty, so I suppose I would say that.

All the talk at the time amongst the left of an 'evil Republican takeover' sounds pretty silly nowadays when the US is moving into the sixth year of Lieberman. Not to say that the Republican leadership didn't try to take advantage of a bad situation, in fact it's precisely because the Republicans did that the US found itself such a pariah, they were just hilariously inept at it. Here in the UK, the Tories were already on the arse-end of popularity even without John Majors' support for the US. Gordon Brown of all people managed to become the Labour leader and then the Prime Minister simply because of his anti-US stance. As far as I can tell, the right in the US lost a lot of credibility thanks to the debacle it landed the country in.

Which begs the question, really...without a WTC attack, it seems a little likely that the Democrats may have gotten in in 1996 (it was pretty close OTL). Would the right have lost so much credibility in that case? If anything, simply by virtue of being in power (goodness knows, Lieberman hasn't been one of the more stellar Presidents. If he tries to have "Grand Theft Auto" banned one more time...) the Democrats may haemorrage credibility. The religious right was getting scarily confident of itself shortly before Quayle's defeat. Might a more inward-looking US see the religious nuts' rise a little higher in stature?

Well consider that this happened just before the Supreme Court shifted greatly. Consider that President Lieberman was able to shift the court the way that he did only because of the death of Justice William H. Rehnquist and the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O' Connor in 2005. Can anyone imagine how bad things could have gotten if the Republicans had control of all three branches of government?

[Wendell]

One wonders if Hamas would have won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections if the voters there felt that the Jewish President in the U.S. was actually comitted to a "two-state solution."

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Originally Posted by Wendell

One wonders if Hamas would have won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections if the voters there felt that the Jewish President in the U.S. was actually comitted to a "two-state solution."

Well the fact that then Vice-President Dan Quayle openly called PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat a "known terrorist and murderer" during the United Nation's 50th Birthday in 1995, seems to indicate that relations with the Palestinians were already on that road!!

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by Mr_ Bondoc

Well the fact that then Vice-President Dan Quayle openly called PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat a "known terrorist and murderer" during the United Nation's 50th Birthday in 1995, seems to indicate that relations with the Palestinians were already on that road!!

This is true, but we are discussing an event which happened eleven years later.

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Originally Posted by Wendell

This is true, but we are discussing an event which happened eleven years later.

The point that I am making is that with the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, plus the added support for the 1996 policies of P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Palestinians had little reason to support the Bush and Quayle administrations. As such, most Arab leaders saw President Lieberman as the lesser of two evils, including the current leaders of Hamas....

[marl_d]

just one question, why did the Bush admin go into Afganistan when OBL was in the Sudan??

[cow defender]

Originally Posted by marl_d

just one question, why did the Bush admin go into Afganistan when OBL was in the Sudan??

oil?


..........

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Originally Posted by cow defender

oil?


..........

Another idea that the Russians, especially after President Vladimir Zhrinovsky came to power in 1994, was the idea that the 1995 invasion of Afghanistan was menat to keep Russian power in check. Consider that Russia was "cracking down" on Chechnya, and they were also sending troops to aid the Serbians in Croatia and Bosnia. Under such conditions, it seems almost understandable why the Bush administration went into Afghanistan....

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by Mr_ Bondoc

Another idea that the Russians, especially after President Vladimir Zhrinovsky came to power in 1994, was the idea that the 1995 invasion of Afghanistan was menat to keep Russian power in check. Consider that Russia was "cracking down" on Chechnya, and they were also sending troops to aid the Serbians in Croatia and Bosnia. Under such conditions, it seems almost understandable why the Bush administration went into Afghanistan....

Though, the Quayle administration did not commit U.S. troops to the Balkans after Serbian suppression of Kosovo.

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Originally Posted by Wendell

Though, the Quayle administration did not commit U.S. troops to the Balkans after Serbian suppression of Kosovo.

Consider that if Quayle had, he would have certainly risked the start of a nuclear war in 1995. But that's another ATL altogether. At least with Afghanistan, he could get the Russians to agree that the Taliban rebels and the near-collapsed government was a threat to world security.