Gore or McCain's response of 9/11

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

Today as of this moment is the 13th anniversary of 9/11 attacks and I create this thread in commemoration.

What would be Al Gore or John McCain's response of 9/11 if they were the president instead of George W. Bush.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I always thought Clinton would have made damn sure he headed for NYC and made sure the American people could see their president. Bush may have been obeying military advice, but there was a definite period of several hours when the US appeared to have no leadership whatsoever, and Pataki/Hilary/Giuliani appeared to be the only people leading any sort of response to the disaster.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Driftless]

I always thought Clinton would have made damn sure he headed for NYC and made sure the American people could see their president. Bush may have been obeying military advice, but there was a definite period of several hours when the US appeared to have no leadership whatsoever, and Pataki/Hilary/Giuliani appeared to be the only people leading any sort of response to the disaster.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

The decision to stay away was sensible, but it did leave an impression of a vacuum. Different era and situation, but think of the public appearances of Churchill or the Royal family during the BoB & the Blitz.

With McCain have been both a Naval officer and a POW, I can imagine he might have a slightly longer leash to respond. I would expect he'd push for prompt but limited response - at least in the beginning. Limited in terms of duration, but using the whole weight of the US arsenal if appropriate. OTL, he supported the invasion of Iraq, but he was also critical of the post-invasion operations - the nation building part. Similar situation for Afghanistan. Go in with overwhelming force, and get out as quickly as you can.

 

[AHFan]

McCain full invasion of Afghanistan / Gore.. no more

This is just a hunch, but I believe that McCain would have had a more visceral reaction. His speech to the American people would have shown a man glaring at the camera. The speech would have been short but angry.

The invasion of Afghanistan would have included far more military assets than did the invasion of Afghanistan in the OTL. Once the invasion was underway, Al Quaida personnel would have gone to Pakistan as the Taliban government would have fallen.

The interesting point is what happens when McCain discovers Al Quaida is in Pakistan. I believe (but have no empirical evidence to support) that McCain would have had political discussions with Pakistan to allow US forces to pursue Al Quaida into Pakistan.

Gore...hmm. More interesting. My hunch is that Gore would have ordered air strikes and then tried to push some sort of renewable energy policy. But this is speculation on my part.

 

[Realpolitik]

Afghanistan is going to get attacked no matter who is in power. The public basically demanded it. I'm pretty sure Gore wouldn't be going to Baghdad. McCain... maybe. He definitely has neocon overtones, but don't confuse rhetoric OTL with what he might actually do. But if he does, it'll be more competently done-no fighting the war on the cheap. Iraq is still going to be a mess.

McCain definitely has more freedom of action than Gore-toughness credentials are useful in times like these to keep away the hotheads. He'll be bloody. What he will do with Pakistan is interesting, given his pit bull reputation. My guess is he really doesn't care who runs Afghanistan afterward so long as they aren't a threat, so it'd be shorter.

Gore... Hm, he'd be under pressure for a tough response, so I don't think he would have the time to plan like McCain could, as mentioned. He would be more interested in nation building than McCain would be, so probably a longer effort. However, he also wouldn't be as aggressive with other nations, and would use the power of the Presidency (expanding with 9/11) to get stuff done.

Each have their pros and cons, but overall, better with either of them.

How Gore would approach Iran-is it possible that he might see an chance here-would be interesting. I don't think McCain would.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

McCain has the same Neo Con advisors as Bush did I think he invades Iraq. tThey both invade Afganistan.

 

[twovultures]

McCain has the same Neo Con advisors as Bush

Would he? I mean, even in an election that he wins, there is going to be an extremely nasty primary at some point against George W. Bush. I think that a lot of people who gravitated to the Bush camp before the election would end up out in the cold under a McCain administration.

 

[Emperor Julian]

McCain's a super hawk, but he doesn't have anything personal against Iraq like Bush.

 

[Johnrankins]

McCain's a super hawk, but he doesn't have anything personal against Iraq like Bush.

For one thing SH never tried to kill anyone in McCain's family. I thought when Bush was elected we would go to war with Iraq sooner or later. It nothing to do with oil or AQ but the fact that Saddam tried to kill Bush's OWN FATHER. Other people seem to have forgotten that but Bush didn't and wouldn't.

 

[Ultimate Paragon]

McCain's a super hawk, but he doesn't have anything personal against Iraq like Bush.

I think he'd still try to bring down Saddam, just by other means.

 

[Johnrankins]

Afghanistan is going to get attacked no matter who is in power. The public basically demanded it.

THIS, and people were right. Afghanistan was simply a no brainer. If you don't respond to a direct attack on your own country you better brace for a hurricane of attacks. You have just revealed yourself as too weak and stupid to live.

 

[cubefreak123]

There would be calls for immediate impeachment if no invasion of Afghanistan is launched no matter who is in charge. Gore would take a bit more of a cautious approach and go into Afghanistan with broader coalition while McCain would be throwing everything and the kitchen sink as soon as he could. I don't think Gore would move on Iraq, and an Axis of Evil speech probably isn't likely so Iran would be seen as less of a threat and a handy counter-weight to Saddam. McCain I'm torn on whether he'd move on Iraq or not, he was a hawk but he also had the wherewithal to know that the immediate mission was destroying AQ and the Taliban, who would have largely relocated into Pakistan. On the point of Pakistan, Gore wouldn't be as much of a bully to them (which could be a problem when it comes to taking out enemy leaders) while McCain would be pushing as hard or harder than Bush did. McCain would see the parallels to Cambodia and Laos from Vietnam and wouldn't want to stand for that. The only problem with that, and this is where Gore's likely approach would come in handy, is that it would be a rallying cry for extremists to recruit around.

Another item, Gore wouldn't have as big of a rally around the flag pull as Bush did. He was VP for 8 years and is not as charismatic, Bush was able to stoke the nationalistic pride after 9/11 really well and used the excuse of "I just got here" to avoid blame for the attacks.

 

[redlightning]

Both will invade Afghanistan, probably fail to capture Bin Laden right away, but neither will ever invade Iraq too.

Without the distraction of the Iraq invasion in 2003, the US should be able to achieve most of its military goals against Al-Qaeda within five years of 9/11 with a much more focused intelligence community on this issue instead of nonexistent WMDs and the aftermath of the occupation of Iraq. All in all a much better managed war in Afghanistan/against Al-Qaeda. No poor legacy from the Iraq War. The national economy would not be nearly as bad either.

 

[Realpolitik]

THIS, and people were right. Afghanistan was simply a no brainer. If you don't respond to a direct attack on your own country you better brace for a hurricane of attacks. You have just revealed yourself as too weak and stupid to live.

When did I say that this was not the right thing to do?

 

[Realpolitik]

There would be calls for immediate impeachment if no invasion of Afghanistan is launched no matter who is in charge. Gore would take a bit more of a cautious approach and go into Afghanistan with broader coalition while McCain would be throwing everything and the kitchen sink as soon as he could. I don't think Gore would move on Iraq, and an Axis of Evil speech probably isn't likely so Iran would be seen as less of a threat and a handy counter-weight to Saddam. McCain I'm torn on whether he'd move on Iraq or not, he was a hawk but he also had the wherewithal to know that the immediate mission was destroying AQ and the Taliban, who would have largely relocated into Pakistan. On the point of Pakistan, Gore wouldn't be as much of a bully to them (which could be a problem when it comes to taking out enemy leaders) while McCain would be pushing as hard or harder than Bush did. McCain would see the parallels to Cambodia and Laos from Vietnam and wouldn't want to stand for that. The only problem with that, and this is where Gore's likely approach would come in handy, is that it would be a rallying cry for extremists to recruit around.

Another item, Gore wouldn't have as big of a rally around the flag pull as Bush did. He was VP for 8 years and is not as charismatic, Bush was able to stoke the nationalistic pride after 9/11 really well and used the excuse of "I just got here" to avoid blame for the attacks.

Yeah, I have the same dilemma with McCain. He is uber-hawkish and very anti-Saddam, but just not having the same situation and views on things as Bush. He is also far less naive. Furthermore, he might not have the same advisors. Again-perhaps he tries different means.

Suppose either of them command at Tora Bora a little better and get OBL?

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Both will invade Afghanistan, probably fail to capture Bin Laden right away, but neither will ever invade Iraq too.

Without the distraction of the Iraq invasion in 2003, the US should be able to achieve most of its military goals against Al-Qaeda within five years of 9/11 with a much more focused intelligence community on this issue instead of nonexistent WMDs and the aftermath of the occupation of Iraq. All in all a much better managed war in Afghanistan/against Al-Qaeda. No poor legacy from the Iraq War. The national economy would not be nearly as bad either.

I'm not so sure.

Invading Iraq was not so much driven by "Bush's Dad" as by the War Fever this county was in, IMO.

Both political parties were committed to regime change in Iraq. Saddam gloating over 9-11 didn't exactly endear him to anyone.


Either could capture of kill Osama. It would be pure luck, either war.


The more units you take the longer it takes to assemble them, and the longer they take to move over Afganistan's crappy roads.

 

[Realpolitik]

I'm not so sure.

Invading Iraq was not so much driven by "Bush's Dad" as by the War Fever this county was in, IMO.

Both political parties were committed to regime change in Iraq. Saddam gloating over 9-11 didn't exactly endear him to anyone.


Either could capture of kill Osama. It would be pure luck, either war.


The more units you take the longer it takes to assemble them, and the longer they take to move over Afganistan's crappy roads.

What an idiot... everybody else realized we weren't screwing around.

 

[Alstein]

Could this have led to an American invasion of Pakistan if Pakistan didn't comply?

 

[cubefreak123]

Could this have led to an American invasion of Pakistan if Pakistan didn't comply?

It's probable, especially if McCain is president. It would have been suicidal for Pakistan to take that approach though. The US was out for blood and if Pakistan wasn't compliant then the US would more or less tell them to go screw themselves and say that Waziristan and other western parts of the country were tribal and lawless and therefore was fair game for the US to go in. It would have been like Iraq all over again but there would have been a more probable cause to go in but a fear over nuclear retaliation. This is to say nothing if India decides to put on pressure as well, it could either help force Pakistani compliance or totally destabilize the entire region; kind of depends on whether or not the Pakistani government gets overthrown by its own people or not.

 

[David T]

There has been a lot of argument about whether Gore would have gone to war in Iraq. (The fact that he opposed the war in OTL is not necessarily determinative; a president is subject to certain constraints that a private citizen is not.) For a summary of Frank P. Harvey's argument that Gore would have gone to war in Iraq, see https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=306846 or read Harvey's own article at http://dspace.africaportal.org/jspu...actual Critique of Conventional W-Isdom.pdf?1