Geronimo : What if Osama Bin Laden was killed prior to 9/11?

My understanding for not prosecuting these individuals is that it was done for political not legal reasons.
I have a lot more research to do on the topic, but my current understanding is that the failures were so widespread that officials were worried that investigations and arrests would only hurt the economy more.
 
aa

Merkel can face serious troubles if the SPD wins in 2005 and Schröder remains in government until 2010. The victory of the SPD and a sightly less united Europe without 9/11 could very translate in a different approach to the 2008 Financial crisis: no austerity but help to nations in difficulty. Greece, Italy and Spain emerge from the crisis like Ireland and Grillo, Tsipras and Podemos do not enter politics or a lot weaker.
Possible, but first at all, there would be no federal election in 2005. The early election of 2005 were a specific reaction of Schröder to the SPD-defeat in 2005.
This was, I think, a mistake of Schröder, bbecause the german economy starte to recover in 2006. If he had waited till 2006, I´m sure he would have been relected.
Stoiber on the other side, would never have tried such a gambit. He would soldier on till 2006 and would be mostly likely reelected.
Still, there is the possibility, that 2005 Stoiber´s majority would seen as to small and that there would be calls for a Great Coalition. And this could be Merkels chance.
EDIT: I also doubt, that Schröder would be renominated aafter a defeat in 2002.
 
Last edited:
I have a lot more research to do on the topic, but my current understanding is that the failures were so widespread that officials were worried that investigations and arrests would only hurt the economy more.
Yeah, that too. Politically the wrong call probably (one or two scalps other than Madoff at minimum) but the focus was more on shoring things up
 
Yeah, that too. Politically the wrong call probably (one or two scalps other than Madoff at minimum) but the focus was more on shoring things up
I think some of it was also politicians trying to save face for themselves or the party. Some of the seeds for the crisis were planted when Clinton was in office, while Bush and Republicans pushed the envelope further with deregulation. Congress is typically reluctant to do anything to upset the economy even when it’s doing well.
 
Just discovered this TL, add me to the pile of those who think it is great. I really think it portrays how “serious” and “important” events would’ve been even without 9/11. The business of the day would continue and nobody would really know what could’ve been…

I’ve read up a bit in this time in American politics and something I’m curious about is what George Tenet’s position is and how he fits in with this Bush White House. IOTL, Tenet was a hangover from the Clinton era that Bush couldn’t immediately fire, then 9/11 happened. Tenet was desperate to protect the CIA and its connection to the White House, and this certainly impacted the intelligence they passed on. Tenet’s CIA knew Bush wanted to hear anti-Iraq info and gave it to him. Without 9/11 I could see him being replaced prior to 2004.

Another tidbit that would be interesting is how the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century develops. You’ve already hinted at reforms and more interagency cooperation; without 9/11 we don’t get the Department of Homeland Security but get something similar, likely an Executive Office position or an agency dedicated to coordination, but not such a wide Cabinet-level reorg.

Again, great stuff.
 
Just discovered this TL, add me to the pile of those who think it is great. I really think it portrays how “serious” and “important” events would’ve been even without 9/11. The business of the day would continue and nobody would really know what could’ve been…

I’ve read up a bit in this time in American politics and something I’m curious about is what George Tenet’s position is and how he fits in with this Bush White House. IOTL, Tenet was a hangover from the Clinton era that Bush couldn’t immediately fire, then 9/11 happened. Tenet was desperate to protect the CIA and its connection to the White House, and this certainly impacted the intelligence they passed on. Tenet’s CIA knew Bush wanted to hear anti-Iraq info and gave it to him. Without 9/11 I could see him being replaced prior to 2004.

Another tidbit that would be interesting is how the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century develops. You’ve already hinted at reforms and more interagency cooperation; without 9/11 we don’t get the Department of Homeland Security but get something similar, likely an Executive Office position or an agency dedicated to coordination, but not such a wide Cabinet-level reorg.

Again, great stuff.

Wow, hands up I had completely forgotten that the CIA head unlike the FBI was not term-limited position. I knew Tenet resigned in 2004 (probably over Iraq) and I knew that they mulled replacing him earlier. So this is a great comment thanks.

Bush liked Tenet which explains why he was allowed to stay on following his election, the CIA liked Tenet. The way I see it until Tenet starts pushing back he'll probably stay on. There are a few replacements I've considered. As for inter-agency cooperation, ITTL it came at the Presidents request after Rumsfeld's and Rice's annoyance. It is still all a big mess, right now there is no big legislative effort so any reform is done in house. I will be sure to provide an update. Thanks again.
 
Will it be better or worse?

IMO probably worse since without his war on terror there's nothing to distract critics when the subprime mortgage housing crisis happens, remember that the first eight months of his presidency before 9/11 he was basically a corporate president who only got into the WH due to some election bullshit in Florida (Hanging chads).
 
I wonder how George W. Bush's reputation will be around the world and back in the US without the War on Terror. Will it be better or worse?
Better overall I’d say. Keep in mind, Obama got a Nobel prize for just not being Bush (which still boggles my mind).
As I recall, Bush and Rumsfeld wanted to alter the defense department to deal with 21st Century problems but 9/11 and the following wars kind of messed things up to an extent. He planned a “leaner” force (I.e. slash personnel extensively), wanted to axe numerous weapon systems, and focus a lot on missile defense (source)
 
I think that you'd see the RAH-66A Comanche go into production and more F-22s be produced also perhaps more more money being plowed into the JSF programme so it enters service a lot earlier than OTL.
 
Last edited:
I think that you'd see the RAH-66A Comanche go into production and more F-22 be produced also perhaps more more money being plowed into the JSF programme so it enters service a lot earlier than OTL.
I instead think that things will go more than likely just as in OTL with regards to the platforms that you mentioned. Without the War on the Terror military spending will not rise as fast as in OTL and since both Republicans and Democrats supported a reduction of military spending before 9/11 it is very likely that many projects will be cancelled or scaled-down just like in OTL. The F-35 delays do not depend on funds shortages but on the overengineering of the airframe and fault sensors and programmes development. I also see no reasons for a significantly bigger F-22 production run since just like in OTL the Pentagon will be focused on completing the development of the JSF Program. The RAH-66 Comanche was also massively over budget and would have required numerous upgrades to be viable on the battlefield. Long story short the RAH-66 was not needed anymore since its role had already been taken by drones.
 
I also see no reasons for a significantly bigger F-22 production run since just like in OTL the Pentagon will be focused on completing the development of the JSF Program
If there's no ill-advised invasion of Iraq and hence no blowing of trillions of dollars on it then the money would be available for additional F-22 production especially if it's done it multi-year procurement lots..
 
If there's no ill-advised invasion of Iraq and hence no blowing of trillions of dollars on it then the money would be available for additional F-22 production especially if it's done it multi-year procurement lots..
You are right; I can see the USAF decide to maintain the commitment to buy 277 F-22 that the Pentagon made in 2003 before the invasion of Iraq but there is no way the USAF would get the 381 that they initially wanted. Regarding the lack of utility of the RAH-66 Comanche I have to agree with @Marco Rivignani however; unmanned drones were and are simply less expensive and already in service. With even more funding I can see the F-35 entering service 1-2 years before OTL but nothing more.
 
Part 16: Shifting Sands
Part XVI

Shifting Sands


Donald Rumsfeld was an experienced hand by now. He had already helmed the defence department under President Ford 20+ years ago. He had hoped that this new administration would give him the chance to drastically reshape the United States military policy. He had made some progress, by resisting the demands of the parties old guard and continuing to lower the Pentagon’s budget to a 20-year low, while at the same time pursuing new, controversial missile development. But his big agenda item, slashing the number of ground troops, had proven an insurmountable task. For nearly 2 years, Rumsfeld had been slow-rolled by the unrelenting bureaucracy of the Pentagon, a military class totally resistant to any worthwhile change and he had received little aid from the White House. His appointment was a little shocking to the media, his decades-long rivalry with the elder Bush could have lost him the job if it hadn’t been for Cheney’s last-minute intervention and he was trying his best not to squander the opportunity.

But now, he’d spent his time in a tug of war for the President’s ear between himself and Secretary Colin Powell, the so-called reluctant warrior. Powell was the reason for his Pentagon troubles, his doctrine in the Gulf War was what all the chiefs-of-staff were clinging to. It had taken time, but all through 2002 Powell had slowly won over the President and the American people. His international missions to Israel and Palestine then India and Pakistan made him the peacemaker, the smartest man in the room and the obvious star of a less than shining administration, he was even Time Magazine's person of the year, ‘what a load of crap’.

1644357929861.png
1644357937502.png

Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell (Time Magazine's 2002 Person of the Year)

Now, the sands were shifting. The Republican loss in the mid-terms threw the White House into a panic. Its domestic agenda was now on ice, further tax cuts dead, healthcare reform was going to be a herculean feat, given the trouble they had with education. The President needed to act, needed to look strong, and in a meeting of the inner circle, Bush’s chief advisor Karl Rove pounded on the issue. “For two years we’ve sat back and let them hit us every which way, it's time that we play offence, Mr President”. The President nodded, Paul Wolfowitz Rumsfeld’s deputy raised the issue of Iraq as he had in practically every meeting over the past 2 years “Mr President I agree, the public needs to see this administration act, the attacks in Bali are a wake-up call that we need to take stronger action outside of Afghanistan”. Paul had made the pitch before, everyone knew where it was going, the outlining of the dangers of Saddam’s Iraq, its human rights abuses, its terrorist connections, its chemical and nuclear weapons programs. As always, Powell pushed back, “Mr President, any action we take needs global support, if we continue to enforce sanctions, and continue to enforce the no-fly zones we can sufficiently contain Saddam”. Rumsfeld cut in “We have to go further, we can’t just follow Clinton’s policy and wait for them to hit us, Saddam is a threat, and we have to get this guy out of there.” Powell questioned the strength of the evidence for such a proposal, and the difficulty they'd face “There is a big difference in supporting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and doing the same in Iraq” but Rumsfeld cut him off again “Then let’s bring Tenet in on this, get the CIA to find Saddam’s weaknesses and expose his entire structure”. Usually, such discussions were cut short by the President who wanted to move to another issue, but instead, the President listened and crafted a plan of action.

1644357964921.png
1644357974365.png

President George W Bush and Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz

“The President wants to see some movement in Iraq” Is how Cheney phrased it. After several meetings the President came to the conclusion that Saddam was an active threat, he described him as “like Hitler” and said that “this guy wants to take over everything” and had finally agreed to take limited action to pursue the stated U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq. The policy called for a covert and public campaign against the Iraqi government. Beginning in 2003, the Bush administration would task the CIA with investigating and probing the Iraqi regime to gain a greater understanding of its connection to international terror and the strength of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. The project also included the recruitment of Iraqi opposition (exiles, dissidents, Kurds and Shia) to provide funding and training for potential military action or indeed a future, post-Saddam government. The new policy also called for stronger enforcement of the Iraqi no-fly zones doubling the number of sorties conducted from January 2003 onwards. Coordinated by the White House, a public pressure campaign would begin in order to raise American and global support against the government of Saddam Hussein, calling for a renewed global commitment to disarm Saddam of his chemical and nuclear weapons and to cease support of terrorism.

It was a bold move, but it still left some unsatisfied, Wolfowitz didn’t think it went far enough “Saddam is a liar, no matter what we find, he is going to deny it and the world is going to let him” He had proposed military action to move ground troops to occupy the northern and southern no-fly zones and turn them into ‘no-drive zones’ controlled by Iraqi opposition, effectively trapping Saddam Hussein and making him the ‘Mayor of Bagdad’, but Powell, Rove, Rice, and the President disagreed. They thought the U.S. wasn’t prepared for such a large military operation, without at least some provocation or congressional authorization. Rumsfeld was more satisfied, it got the ball rolling at least, and the real work was beginning, most importantly he saw that his vision was finally getting through to the President.

The new Iraq policy came with risks. CIA relations inside the country were minimal following a failed coup in 1994 that saw most of their assets executed. Unlike Afghanistan, there was no strong, committed opposition and most of Iraq’s neighbours (though they held poor relations with Saddam) were unwilling to support US efforts against it, these nations included Iran, Turkey and Syria. Jordan and Saudi Arabia, strong U.S. allies were cautious of any U.S. interference in the fragile country, though they were willing to provide intelligence and aid elements of the Iraqi opposition. Kuwait was the firm ally the US needed it continued to demand war debts and complained of border crossings, should it come to it, Kuwait would have to be the springboard for an invasion of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, the Iraqi opposition was hopelessly divided, from the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south to the scattered Arab opposition in Bagdad. There was Communists, opposition Ba’athists, Monarchists, pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian groups unwilling or unable to aid each other, and now they were tasked with forming united opposition? The U.S. held ties with two Iraqi groups headed by exiles, the Iraqi National Accord led by Ayad Allawi and the Iraqi National Congress led by Ahmed Chalabi, the INC had received sizable funding through the Iraqi Liberation act but was plagued with corruption and many in the CIA doubted its reliability or popularity in Iraq. However, both Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz the INC more favourably. The Iraqi opposition would be provided further funding for espionage and gathering intel inside Iraq, as well as commencing training for potential military operations should an uprising in Iraq occur eventually forming the IFF (Iraqi Freedom Force). Needless to say, expectations in the Pentagon were high and a sort of Cold War mindset had set in among the few involved. Operations inside Iraq began, jacking up funding for Kurdish military groups, by far the best organised anti-Saddam partisans inside Iraq. These operations became collectively known as IFR, pronounced Ifra, shorthand for Iraqi Freedom

1644357992654.png
1644357998261.png

Head of the INA Ayad Allawi and Head of the INC Ahmed Chalabi

The new policy was on show during the 2003 state of the Union speech, to a less enthused Democratic majority than his previous speeches. On top of health care and further tax reform, Bush evoked for the first time a more coherent foreign policy, with a more hawkish tone than he’d previously spoken with. He outlined threats to the United States and the world, that included “dangerous regimes that seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and provide aid and safe harbour to terrorists”. He mentioned Iraq and Saddam specifically as “A brutal dictator, with a reckless history who must not be allowed to continue his pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons … we call upon the nations of the world to act against this man”. He called for the return of weapons inspectors as well as the adjustment of sanctions to specifically target Iraq’s military imports.

The reaction both domestically and globally was generally positive. Though an air of cynicism wavered around the pundits, accusing Bush of attempting to pivot his presidency after the midterms. Most supported Bush’s call to action and the chamber echoed with applause after each line. Still most Democrats urged caution, including thefirst female majority leader Nancy Pelosi “Of course we must exhaust every possible diplomatic remedy before any military option be considered”, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts “Now there shouldn’t be a war, but if he has these weapons that’s a danger” and Senator Ted Kennedy “I think the President should stay focused on the issues right here at home, before he talks about anywhere else”, few were going to pointlessly go against the President on the issue and indeed the Republicans were all to happy to support the presidents anti-Saddam stance and some pushed for military action immediately, these advocates included Senator John McCain who had critiqued Bush constantly over tax cuts and failing to support his campaign finance reform bill, he now vocally supported the President “We need regime change in Iraq he [Saddam] is an international felon who must be brought to Justice”, or Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions “We need to carry out our national policy, which is to get rid of Saddam Hussein” or Republican house whip Tom Delay who, when asked about regime change put it simply “the sooner the better”.

1644358007911.png

President George Bush delivers the 2003 State of the Union Speech

However, there was criticism of the U.S. Iraq policy both on the left and right. From conservative war hawks who saw it as a continuation of Clinton's foreign policy, as conservative commentator Thomas Friedman put it "This is a war unfinished, we should have finished the job in 1991". To liberal doves who saw further sanctions and strikes as pointless activities that did nothing to hurt the regime and only further impoverished the Iraqi people for instance Ralph Nader "The people of Iraq need light at the end of the tunnel, not an American made missile". Christopher Hitchens attacked the president from both sides commenting that “ He [Bush] is a man completely proud of his ignorance, having failed to win the popular vote by some margin and already soaked in scandal, is looking like a sorry second act to his father”

The response was more muted internationally, The United KingdomsPrime Minister Blair (who had already taken action against Iraq twice alongside the US in December 1998 and February 2001) said in a speech to the House of Commons that “The current status quo is unpractical, and that the international community should take every step necessary to reduce the threat Saddam poses”, Blair emphasised the return of U.N weapons inspectors as the first necessary step to a “territorially secure Iraq”. Similar statements were made by Australia PM Kim Beazley “Our moral interest is to put pressure on Saddam Hussein” and German Chancellor Edmund Stoiber called for a “united effort to isolate Iraq”.

As for Iraq itself, Saddam continued his usual bellicose ways and dismissed out of hand the return of any U.N. weapons inspectors “The people of Iraq reject any accusations or claims made by arrogant parties, Iraq is prepared to defend itself against the allies of Satan!”

1644358021312.png

Saddam Hussein addresses his generals
 
Last edited:
Well things are getting a little spicy it seems. I doubt Bush has the political capital or popularity to attempt anything greater than sanctions and air strikes though.
 
Loving the TL, but I'm not sure that Hitchens quote would be accurate.

Hitchens had clearly pivoted to an interventionalist stance as far back as the NATO bombings against Slobodan Milosevic's forces in 1999 - he broke with the left over it.

He'd absolutely support giving Saddam the boot IOTL - listen to his description of the man later. He supported ousting Saddam on humanitarian terms, to liberate the Kurds.
 
Loving the TL, but I'm not sure that Hitchens quote would be accurate.

Hitchens had clearly pivoted to an interventionalist stance as far back as the NATO bombings against Slobodan Milosevic's forces in 1999 - he broke with the left over it.

He'd absolutely support giving Saddam the boot IOTL - listen to his description of the man later. He supported ousting Saddam on humanitarian terms, to liberate the Kurds.
Wow what a difference a few years make. I'll come up with a re-edit thanks a lot.
 
Top