AHC/WI: WW2-like War on Terror; effects on American domestic front.

What would it take for the United States to enter this WW2-like total war after 9/11? I'll propose a few possibilities:

-- Less disastrous Vietnam, less successful Gulf War. This military history no doubt convinced Bush's defense crew that keeping the public distracted from daily military operations was a recipe for success, and that a quick war was a possibility.

-- No abolition of the draft by Nixon

-- More timely declaration of war, more pointed rhetoric by President Bush

-- More clearly articulated targets from the get-go. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran.

Would this be able to inspire the following domestic effects:

-- Rationing?

-- Directors like Spielberg and Bay create patriotic pro-War films, bordering on propaganda?

-- A boost in productivity by creating demand for manufacturing jobs?

-- Higher personal savings rate?

-- Govt. endorsed Islamophobia?

-- Longer-lasting political unity?

-- Post-war Marshall plan-like effort for the Middle East?

Is this plausible? How long would this war last? Would the middle-east be more stable today? Would the American political parties be unified on matters of post-war domestic governance?
 
I honestly think this is doable if the Soviets and their Chinese allies went kaput in a 50's WWIII and the US puts like some one world order upon the world and deals with insurgents of shapes and sizes and the government, without the public awareness of it's ability to being abused post OTL Watergate, goes nuts with the narrative that the insurgents are a threat to world peace or something.
 

missouribob

Banned
Easiest way would be a nuclear 9/11. Anything short of that probably isn't going to cut it. WW2 level spending got up to 41 percent of GDP. [1] The War on Terror peaked at 6.2. [2] Have a nuclear 9/11 with Bush killed and Cheney as President and I think you can get that level of response. 20 percent would be spent invading Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan along with perpetual war in Northwest Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia etc. You would need a draft to hold that territory and do nation-building. Then the other 20 percent spent on internal security (you really would need to screen everything coming into the country), a border wall, an internal security state, maybe socialized health care as a practical matter to deal with all the instances of cancer and a fig leaf to Democrats and reconstruction of Washington/building of the new capital.

References:
[1]http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending
[2]http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/world/slot3_20080204.html?pagewanted=all
 
What would it take for the United States to enter this WW2-like total war after 9/11? I'll propose a few possibilities:...

Is this plausible? How long would this war last? Would the middle-east be more stable today? Would the American political parties be unified on matters of post-war domestic governance?

This would have wound up being a disaster that completely forgot every lesson of war fighting in the post-WW2 era. It would have devolved into a quagmire. Militarily, conquering Iran would have been an uphill climb even with an all-out US effort due to the large population and difficult terrain and logistics. Once defeated, you would have had an insurgency. Iraq and Afghanistan would have gone along OTL lines: a relatively quick defeat, followed by insurgency. That's bad enough alone, and there's a good chance that it might have degenerated into a wider US vs. the Islamic world conflict. Very messy, especially if Pakistan destabilizes and its nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands.

Politically, a draft followed by the return of an endless stream of body bags would have been untenable for more than a few years. OTL WW2 lasted less than 4 years for the US with total victory and no insurgencies and 4 years after the end f the war, (West) Germany was an ally by treaty. Even with the complete commitment of the US to war, you are not going to get such a happy ending in this conflict. The only way to avoid an endless war is to go nuclear and literally wipe the offending countries off the map in what would be nothing less than a planned genocide. There is no happy end to that scenario, either. The tolerance of the American people for protracted war has never been that great. Four years seems to be the historical limit and it could be less in today's instant gratification consumer society. People are going to care about the draft and body bags, but they are also going to miss their new cars, luxury foods, travel, electronics, video games, clothing choices and Nikes. Life on the home front in WW2 was definitely a mixed bag for people. They had jobs with good pay but little on which to spend their earnings.

Economically, this would have wrecked the US and global economies for some length of time. By 2001, the US was not a closed economy similar to the 1941 US economy. A transition to a complete war footing would have had adverse consequences in places like China where the economy was driven by US exports. What you are discussing here is essentially a shutdown of the US consumer economy along WW2 lines with compulsory savings to finance the war. This was tenable in the 1940s where consumer industries transitioned to war production. Here, unless you outsource war production overseas, a lot of consumer producers overseas are simply shut own for the duration. Moreover, the US had undergone substantial deindustrialization by 2001. The level of production of WW2 was simply not possible; the capacity was not there. In addition, the economy was largely a service economy, which would have been adversely affected by a war economy in which nonessentials are basically banned. So, say goodbye to travel and tourism and the restaurant industry for the duration and a good chink of the FIRE sector (finance, insurance, real estate). Also say goodbye to consumer electronics and fashion and every other industry which depends on discretionary consumer spending. A lot of people will be out of work and a lot of businesses will not survive. The 2001 economy was a LOT different than the economy of 1941 and the consequences of a total war commitment far more severe.

In short, this is a military, political and economic fiasco.
 

missouribob

Banned
To piggyback on @Apollo 20 a bit I think the best case scenario for this would be the following:

2001- Nuclear 9/11 in D.C. Bush declares War on Terror and period of reconstruction.
2002- Draft instated for reconstruction, internal security, Afghanistan peacekeeping and sped up Iraq invasion. The Bush Administration is smart enough to see the United States needs more industry to fight this expanded conflict and instead of tax cuts the signature policy of the Bush Administration is the reindustrialisation of the United States.
2003- Iranian airstrikes that lead to all out war. Draft is expanded, you need an army of 2.2. million to hold the place. Since they have a draft Rumsfeld isn't quite listened to with his low troop numbers theories. Iraq has 300,000 troops, Afghanistan 100,000 and by the beginning of 2005 2.2 million in Iran.
2004- Bush wins reelection easily since the United States really did suffer from a nuclear attack and besides wasting time dicking around in the Middle East the administration HAS successfully prevented another attack and as side benefits from creating a larger internal security state cut down on violent crime, illegal immigration and even raised the standard of living of many Americans. In this ATL America every American in mobilized in the National Defense meaning many Americans who didn't have well paying jobs DO. National employment is as low as it can get basically (which has it's own consequences). I would say that as far as the underclass/working class are concerned this ATL is a net gain. The middle class and above are relatively worse off though.
2005- Max troop strength in the Middle East. Support is waning and Democrats are expecting to make a comeback in the 2006 midterms. Let's say Katrina still happens although ironically since the Black Underclass of New Orleans in this ATL is largely mobilized into the Security State many of them are able to evacuate their families in time and have the financial resources to do so. In fact since America is still at full war mobilization there is no post-hurricane looting since those men in this ATL are in Iran...
2006- Ok support is seriously waning at this point. Not necessarily for the internal security upgrades but the pointless foreign adventures that just keep on going. The Democrats take back Congress in 2006 on a platform of gradual withdraw from Iran, a return to a consumer based economy and eventually an end to the draft (although with the new internal security state has lead to some intra-party debate on that front.) In any case America is tired of war and wants to return to a quasi-pre 9/11 state.
2007- Just like OTL the Bush Administration doesn't listen to the liberal opposition when it comes to withdraw and the Iran War becomes a major flash point. Also this 41 percent GDP spending since 2003 is running out of steam economically. Bush's approval ratings begin to slide and more and more Americans are looking for a change.
2008 - Recession the level of at least 2008 OTL occurs due to the economy overheating from the war spending/internal security/reconstruction costs. This economic crisis, pared with the souring mood of the American public towards the Iranian War leads to someone like Hillary Clinton being elected President in 2008 who works with a Democratic Congress to end the Iranian War with dignity (hint the U.S. doesn't), stabilize and reconfigure the economy back to consumer spending (moderately successful on both fronts) and fix the other damage caused by ignoring the rest of the world for 7 years (To many butterflies.)

Mind you this is the best case scenario for your conditions OP.
 
Top