A Thwarted September 11, 2001 Attack

Before I try this, I want to note that I mean no offense when I speculate on 9/11. Just thought I'd say that before I wonder what happens if it failed...


On September 11, Osama bin Laden and his al-Quaida terrorist network launched an attack on America. At least, that's what happened in OTL.

I've heard reports, from papers to books, that state that Bush was warned by Clinton officials that bin Laden would be a major problem. Bush, however, seemed to ignore the warnings. In ATL, however, instead of failing in that respect, Bush follows up on Clinton's advise and his administration keeps an eye on bin Laden and al-Quaida. This allows them to discover the planned 9/11 attacks and arrest the wanna-be hijackers before they can board the planes.

The story gets out and, instead of (as in OTL) being views as the man who allowed this to happen, Bush is seen as something of a national hero.

Now, this isn't as absurd as some of the things I've seen while I've been on this board. What I want to know is what you think will happen?

A) Would you think there'd be a Second Gulf War? (I've heard it was in the cards before 9/11 anyway, so....)

B) How would be change if Bush is a heroic leader instead of the biggest idiot ever in the office?

C) How will America change? Would we still have a period of anti-Muslim almost-mania?

D) How about internationally? Would the world look differently at us? Would we still go to war? Would it turn out like it has now?

E) And, in my final question I have personally, there's war. If we got into one, like OTL, would the world react any differently? Would we have more allies? Less?

This one has just been nagging at me, so I figured I'd ask the experts at AHDB. Anyway, tear this one apart.
 

bard32

Banned
Clinton was also warned. He tried to kill bin Laden with a cruise missile strike.
He failed.
 
I realize that. Didn't fail for lack of trying though.

This isn't about killing bin Laden, though. It's mearly about thwarting 9/11, probably pumping it up to help themselves out, as politicians do.
 
The idea that Bush failed to prevent 9/11 is just a footnote on the list of reasons why he is an idiot. Yet, I guess he'd be a sort of hero if he stopped 9/11, but then again, it might be just like any other terrorist being arrested.
 
The idea that Bush failed to prevent 9/11 is just a footnote on the list of reasons why he is an idiot. Yet, I guess he'd be a sort of hero if he stopped 9/11, but then again, it might be just like any other terrorist being arrested.

But then you have oh so many butterflies. Without thousands of American deaths, it would have been harder, if not impossible, to get the Iraq War started, hero or no. Without the massively unpopular war, we'd still have, as I've heard it called, a "surplus of international goodwill". With more popularity, even if he couldn't get away with war, he could probably get more of his policies going. On the other hand, certain things would die (wire tapping?) because there's no reason that, without the big threat, would never be passed.

And before we start it, it does change. Again, hero or no, it's harder to make otherwise unpopular decisions without thousands of dead Americans behind you.
 
I think we see Bush losing the 2004 elections. He didn't have a lot of good ideas, to be quite honest. Preventing 9-11 would be a boost, but I don't think he'd be a national hero for it, and there are still other things, like the NY black out, that would get on people's nerves.

9-11 was a massive boost for W, who somehow managed to get away from the very disputed 2000 election and become a popular president. If it didn't happen, I think Bush would remain a weak and unpopular president tarred by the election that went against the popular vote.

There would be no Iraq war.
USA might have a budget Surplus (or at least a smaller debt) at this point.
Bush continues to be an idiot, but manages to avoid really screwing the USA because very few people trust him or expect very much of him.

It's better all around. If only.:(
 
If he thwarts it there is no Afghanistan war the Taliban is Still in Charge there. And then the next terror attack comes because the American People are alot less prepared and its either Nuclear or a Bio attack and Millions of Americans die and then The middle east glows in the dark.

This is what 9/11 prevented because it woke up the American people and they have put more effort into paying attention.\

it gets prevented and the attack that got prevented OTL with the Multiple planes with bombs in them happens. Which makes it alot worse.


The iraq war maybe or maybe not happens

The American right does not go all interventionist and re elects bush again in 2004 just because he stays away from the rest of the world.

The world slowly gets worse without the American war on terror.
 
First I don't think it would make President Bush a hero in the people's eyes because he wouldn't personally thwart the attack, the FBI would pick the terror cell up and it would not even make the news for more than a day or two. It would probably be remembered a bit like the first failed attempt on the WTC was (i.e. hardly at all).

Second, given that the Bin Laden mob's entire strategy was the classic terrorist one of hitting their enemy hard enough to cause a massive overreaction and use that overreaction to radicalise the passive majority against their enemy (a strategy that has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in OTL) they would keep trying until they succeeded in doing so.

Would the Iraq invasion happen before a 'spectacular' attack on the USA succeeded? I know they were groups in the administration calling for it, but I would say no, it was controversial enough anyway.
 
It all depends upon how it is stopped.

If the hijackers are apprehended in US airports, just prior to boarding planes, there will be a huge uproar.

If a group of terrorist are nipped in the bud, then another, stronger plan will be formulated. This new plan will probably be even more spectactular.
 
It all depends upon how it is stopped.

If the hijackers are apprehended in US airports, just prior to boarding planes, there will be a huge uproar.

If a group of terrorist are nipped in the bud, then another, stronger plan will be formulated. This new plan will probably be even more spectactular.

Don't know if I would use the word spectacular... How about horrific?
 
Don't know if I would use the word spectacular... How about horrific?

Sorry, I should have clarified that. I meant 'spectacular' as in 'a spectacle' - not a good one, but a spectacle nonetheless.

I suppose 'horrific' or simply 'high profile' would have been a better choice of words.
 
Don't know if I would use the word spectacular... How about horrific?

'A Spectacular' is how a big attack is described in the UK. IMO it implies no form of approval, if anything, it's more an expression of sang froid. IIRC it comes from the description the IRA used to use. Of course all terrorist attacks are horrific, but some generate more 'spectacle' than others. Killing 100 people in a big explosion is more spectacular than knifing them one by one in back alleys (but actually probably less horrific, if there is a scale of horror in these things).
 
:rolleyes:

There's a pretty wide consensus that the world would actually be better off without the huge mistake of the so-called war on terror.

Not better, not worse, just different. And what is to say that there won't be a war on terror anyways 6-10 months later when A-Q or the like pull off their new plan.
 
9-11 Thwarted

As one correspondent has said it depends on how. It is hard to see Bush coming of good out of it.

9-11 is thwarted by intelligence and never really gets off the ground. There is no publicity and therefore no Kudos because no one knows anything about it like any really successful intelligence operation.

The plot gets a bit further and the trainee pilots are lifted by the FBI and a few people deported. There is limited publicity9-11 and a bit of anti Islamic feeling but Bush gains little Kudos

The Air Force is better organised and fighter aircraft are scrambled and shoot both airliners down with heavy loss of life. The conspiracy theorists claim it was contrived and there is the feeling that it was all a big mistake. Bush is condemned as a murderer by some and the FBI is accused of incompetence for letting the plotters get that far. Again Bush loses

Its all a bit like Pearl Harbour and incompetence is a more likely explanation than conspiracy. Once Japan attacked Pearl Harbour it would have been war even if the attack was beaten off. It has been claimed that Margaret Thatcher deliberately allowed the Falkland Islands to be invaded but it could all have gone differently. A successfull 9-11 may have boosted Bushes fortunes but he still came across as incompetent and indecisive. It seems unlikely he is playing dumb like Reagan did, he was just lucky.

I suspect Al Quiada would have got lucky in some other country if they hadn't with 9-11 but probably not on the same scale. Also in any succesfull counter operation valuable intelligence would have been gathered
 
To be fair, if 9/11 was stopped in the airports, would people actually know about it?


It will depend on how much is known, how much they say, and how far into the system they have got.

If they are about to board the 'planes when stopped, it will probably be a major story. If the US government then announce the intended targets (providing they can find that out) then it will create a huge stink.

Not enough to go into Iraq, and probably not Afghanistan either; but there will likely be a seismic shift in US thinking.
 
9-11 is thwarted by intelligence and never really gets off the ground. There is no publicity and therefore no Kudos because no one knows anything about it like any really successful intelligence operation.

Well, these are politicians we're talking about. Like I said earlier, as most people know, politicians will do anything and everything to make themselves look good. If (as in the scenario I provided above) they got the terrorists as they were preparing to board the plane, they'd have found out their intended target. Bush and most likely those in his "good book" will do the politically right thing; they'll take credit for it, say that only through their brave efforts (with the people who actually did it as an afterthought) have they prevented a major catastrophe.

It's what one does in politics. Also, given that Bush was never popular in the first place, he and his advisers will most definitely get the word out that THEY stopped the terrorist attacks. Of course they'd flog it for all their worth if they thought it could make them look good. Any more popularity is good.
 
Top