How would have Gore reacted to 9/11?

Probably the same way, initially, with an invasion of Afghanistan. It's not clear whether that would lead to a capture or killiing of OBL at Tora Bora. Probably not. The reason for the failure was the use of natives to guide Special Forces, who were untrustworthy. Those same guides would still be there.

Thereafter, there'd be continued interest in taking the war to Pakistan, rather than shifting interest to Iraq. This would put pressure on Pervez Musharaff, possibly causing his premature collapse and replacement by a democratic government. It is unlikely that it would allow US forces to operate in Pakistan freely, and so OBL would still remain at large.

The rest of his presidency would be focused on domestic security. I suspect there would still be something like the Dept of Homeland Security, but if there was a Patriot Act, it is unlikely it would be as drastic or last as long.

Gore was always into environmental concerns, so he would likely pursue those in office, pressing for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. What is certain is that he would not win his Nobel Prize, at least not when he has.

Without Iraq to cast a shadow over his presidency, support for the Democratic party would persist into the election of 2008, likely resulting in victory for Hillary Clinton as president.

The idea of Hillary Clinton winning the 2008 presidential election after 16 Clinton and Gore years is pure ASB. Even if everything in the USA is hunky-dory and ginger-peachy, the nation will be ready for change and a new direction and will look to the GOP to deliver it.
 

stalkere

Banned
Again, your assertion here is contradicted by historical evidence. Germany 1945, Japan 1945, Panama 1989- in past instances where the US has invaded a nondemocratic country and forcibly installed a democratic government, the removal of the dictatorship was not followed by any significant insurrection. What distinguishes Iraq from the other three examples is its non-homogeneous nature, in particular the fact that one of the three major sectarian/ethnic groups had a motive to prefer the previous nondemocratic system.
<snip>.

You're comparing apples and oranges - there WAS significant opposition in Germany after the war. It was primarily in the Soviet Occupation Zone - the last action of the Nazi underground is the assassination of the Soviet Governor in 1949. There is some evidence that some Nazi underground actions in the Western Allies zones were characterized as Criminal action rather than Nazi Underground.

Japan is a special case - the Emperor said "Cooperate" and they did, for the most part. There was also a lot of very intelligent Civil Action Programs to help the Japanese Recovery. Many of them were on the lines of "Teahouse of the August Moon" - these folks succeeded in helping the Japanese, often IN SPITE of their failures to do what they were trying to do.

All of this was pretty much forgotten by the time of Viet Nam - there was a lot of good Army and Marine Civic Actions Folks, but many of the best suggestions were ignored by a leadership that kept trying to create a Cental European War from an Asian Insurgency.

In Panama we had another special case - US troops were both invaders and familiar neighbors. Most Panamanians were familiar with US Army convoys driving through their areas, and US tourists in the back country. Many folk felt disenfranchised by the Noriega government. We weren't exactly "foreign" invaders. Add to this some very good Civil Actions Work, much of it done by people who were ignored in Viet Nam but had now risen to levels of power that made them unable to ignore.

You forgot Grenada - again, some very astute work by the Civil Actions folks paid big dividends.

In Iraq, a lot of our problems, I lay at the feet of people that DID NOT WANT to listen to folks that understood Civil Actions Programs. The wrong lessons were drawn from Panama and Grenada - that were going to take down the nasty Central Government and the Iraqis were going to join hands and sing Kumbaya.

"We doan need no steenkin' civic actions programs" - that is a direct quote from a Flag Officer at CENTCOM-forward when I tried to bring up the subject....

I admit, I do have some bones to pick here. I was in Grenada, Panama, DS and OEF/OIF. There are some good civil actions programs, but at best, they are small adjuncts to the main effort. In 2003, anybody that saw the cultural and racial differences in Iraq and tried to factor them into planning was a heretic.

Basically, I feel that my experience at CENTCOM Forward in Iraq 2003 felt very much like what my father told me of being at MACV in 1967.

Now, just to make some pretense of staying On-topic, would President Gore have sent me, and a few hundred thousand other troops to Iraq? I'd like to think, based on what I've read of the man - I only met him once, and then only for a few minutes - the answer is NO.

As somebody mention a few posts back "the slam dunk evidence" was used to support an invasion that was already decided. I personally saw some of the evidence. It was strong, in my opinion, but not "slam dunk".

I'd think that President Gore would have gone for a "North Korea" policy = basically economically and strategically isolate the place for fifty-plus years and let it collapse on its own.

That is pretty much a continuation of the Clinton policy, yep, but IMHO, it was WORKING...now, there's a "stay the course" program I could support.

I guess history looks a little different when you're reading a book or newspaper, as opposed to actually having been involved in it...

Ed
 
Top