9/11 WI; Police work instead of Afghan War

He'd probably lose a lot of voter approval. The afghan situation was very bad, with an uncooperative and officiallyunrecognised government that lacked the protection of a rival superpower. Ruling out military options would have allowed the Taleban to make the USA look weak. Of course, using military options may yet end up doing the same, but it wasn't the easy choice.

An intelligence black op might do the trick and paciofy the voters. And given the proven competence of the CIA especially in the Muslim world, that should be a piece of cake.
 
This is an ASB scenario. Even a President Al Gore would have unleashed the cruise missiles, though likely little else. Hard to arrest people in Taliban Ruled Afghanistan in any case.
 
MarkWhittington said:
Even a President Al Gore would have unleashed the cruise missiles

Any President who didn't react strongly would have been impeached. In the event, the Bush White House saw 9/11 as an opportunity. President Gore would most likely have pursued some sort of military strategy to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan for revenge, and because, politcally, they were an easy target. The question would have been what came next.

Orville_third said:
I do have an AH in mind in which post-9/11 police work is combined with the military...

Some combination, even if 9/11 was treated as a law enforcement problem, would have been inevitable. There are certain jobs that you need the military for, whether formally or working under black cover, because they have the training for it.
 
Well, in my story, Bush would order the military to do something that had not been done in a long time. (I might as well tell you. The military personnel (on the ground at least) would be effectively deputized as US Marshals and empowered to arrest any Al-Quaida personnel they find. This would have ripple effects, including protests from some civil libertarians (Anmd a possible reemergence of the militia movement...), a greater coordination among Federal Law Enforcement Agencies (However, before this happens, the FBI and DEA would be upset about the Military being deputized as Marshals, despite the FBI being the lead investigation agency regarding terrorism and the DEA dealing with the Afghan drug situation), and Tommy Lee Jones starring in another film sequel. (Coincidentally, as I am typing this, my parents are watching "The Fugitive...")

WHY the Marshals? Well, they're the oldest Federal Law Enforcement Agency, they've traditionally been associated with the wild west (With apologies to Scott Ritter, someone is going to steal the title of his book, "Frontier Justice") (Additional apologies will go to Will Smith, whose theme song will be playing in several military bases...), and they have arrested civilians who protested near the Pentagon and enforce federal laws in Antarctica and Space...so why not in Afghanistan?

http://www.usmarshals.gov/history/civilian/1967a.htm
http://www.usmarshals.gov/history/astronaut/index.html
http://www.usmarshals.gov/history/antarctica/index.html
 
Last edited:
Orville_Third said:
Bush would order the military to do something that had not been done in a long time. (I might as well tell you. The military personnel (on the ground at least) would be effectively deputized as US Marshals and empowered to arrest any Al-Quaida personnel they find.

United States Code Title 28 said:
There is hereby established a United States Marshals Service as a bureau within the Department of Justice under the authority and direction of the Attorney General. There shall be at the head of the United States Marshals Service (hereafter in this chapter referred to as the “Service”) a Director who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. (Emphasis added)

This would put deputized military personnel into a dual chain of command. The Joint Chiefs will not accept that lightly as it compromises a fundamental doctrine of service discipline and organization - the unified chain of command that runs from every E1 up to the Commander-in-Chief.

In the event of a conflict of orders, who do these deputized military assets report to? Are they bound by the US Code or the Uniform Code of Military Justice in carrying out their duties?

This sets up a possible turf war between Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, two of the sharper bureaucratic in-fighters in the Bush cabinet. Interesting to see who wins that fight.

I'm not dissing your idea Orville, just suggesting that this is an issue that would have to be addressed.
 
You are correct. In combat, the soldiers would be under military command, but if apprehending Al-Quaida, they would be effectively Special U.S. Marshals. (The Marshals themselves would do the arresting.) I'm not sure how some of the conflict would be resolved. (For that matter, there is a conflict over what benefits they would get afterwards if one was hurt or killed...)
Perhaps a good guide would be the old posses in which the military took part in back in the old west. (I'd also need to look into FBI and DEA operations in afghanistan too...)
I think this could be done outside the traditional Posse Comitatus law as it would take place on foreign soil. However, I'm sure the ACLU, Libertarians and Paleoconservatives wouldn't see it that way. It should also be noted that this method would allow for civillian trials, thus upsetting Cheney and company, but preserving a bit more of America's image.
 

Cook

Banned
This is an ASB scenario. Even a President Al Gore would have unleashed the cruise missiles, though likely little else. Hard to arrest people in Taliban Ruled Afghanistan in any case.

So a President Gore would have done the same as President Clinton did; fire cruise missiles at already empty training camps.

And our special word for today kiddies is; “Impotency”.
 
So a President Gore would have done the same as President Clinton did; fire cruise missiles at already empty training camps.

And our special word for today kiddies is; “Impotency”.
You know this has the potential for some really nasty PoD:
1. Gore Wins
2. "Impotent Underreaction" to 9/11
3. Bigger version of 9/11 happens in 2002, which everyone to the right of Michael Moore blames the Democrats for.
-> Cue shitstorm
 
OTL's response to the 9-11 attacks is probably a blunder, in fairness. The United States lost the support of the world by entering a war with Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attacks and the casus belli turned out to be wrong.

I agree with Cook: Impotency is the word of the day, children!

The United States, having committed itself to a war against the wrong foe for the wrong reasons and imperiling its economy and its relationships worldwide and suffering more losses on the battlefield than were lost in the 9-11 attacks in the first place, while Iran and North Korea may very well both wind up WITH nuclear weapons.

Whatever the gains of Afghanistan (and it appears that despite all of the rhetoric, little has been achieved), I do have to support the idea that focusing on law enforcement would have to be more positive than fighting wars without end or relevant purpose.
 
So a President Gore would have done the same as President Clinton did; fire cruise missiles at already empty training camps.

And our special word for today kiddies is; “Impotency”.

I wonder whether this idea isn't ared herring. The issue isn't whetheror not to use troops. Atsome point, the US would have had to use its military power. The uiussueis how and in what capacity. IIRC (and this is arathervague memory), the taleban were engaged in some sort of one-sided negotiation saying they might give up suspects to an Islamic court and such. A US government willing to go that route would very quickly find that this wasmn't really an offer, but it might be in a position to arm-twist the Taleban into honouring it nonetheless. A much more limited military effort could do that. Alternatively, mnight the US government, instead of doing a Ctrl-Alt-Delete on the country, have begun negotiations with the Afghan government-in-exile to act, in theory, as its assistant in enforcing the law?

The nineteenth century offers plenty of legal precedents for military interventions in pursuit of law-enforcement goals. They're not *nice*, but they're there.

Edit: The idea of deputising the military by divisions sounds like right out of The west Wing. I doubt it would work, but it's just the thing some smartass Beltway lawyer might come up with. Me likes.
 
I wonder whether this idea isn't ared herring. The issue isn't whetheror not to use troops. Atsome point, the US would have had to use its military power. The uiussueis how and in what capacity. IIRC (and this is arathervague memory), the taleban were engaged in some sort of one-sided negotiation saying they might give up suspects to an Islamic court and such. A US government willing to go that route would very quickly find that this wasmn't really an offer, but it might be in a position to arm-twist the Taleban into honouring it nonetheless. A much more limited military effort could do that. Alternatively, mnight the US government, instead of doing a Ctrl-Alt-Delete on the country, have begun negotiations with the Afghan government-in-exile to act, in theory, as its assistant in enforcing the law?

The nineteenth century offers plenty of legal precedents for military interventions in pursuit of law-enforcement goals. They're not *nice*, but they're there.

Edit: The idea of deputising the military by divisions sounds like right out of The west Wing. I doubt it would work, but it's just the thing some smartass Beltway lawyer might come up with. Me likes.


Agreed. As a story targetting liberal sensibilities, it is quite viable.

As a policy...
 
Actually, the idea was something I got from remembering the old west, and looking up info on the Marshal's Service. (If anything the criticism of Bush would likely be from the Left at first (and the Paleoconservatives) for bending the Posse Comitatus act.
 
the problem with any type of 'police investigation' is that the suspects won't hang around to be arrested. If there is the slightest hint that the Taliban is going to inter them, OBL and company will head into hiding in Pakistan. And of course, in OTL, the Taliban pretty much connived at letting them do so, not making any attempt at all to detain them. After that, we'd have to rely on Pakistan to arrest them, which is a laughable idea...
 
Top