Niall Ferguson looks at if 9/11 had not happened.

AWKB

kevvy2010 said:
Bin Laden's Islamic Republic of Arabia? That's something I'd expect out of Spike's Alternate History show. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This.

This whole scenario is a bit... outlandish. I'm hardly one to talk since I lurk more than I post, but even I wouldn't have written this.
 

JoeMulk

Banned
I also find his assumption that Kerry would still be the Democratic nominee in 04 to be a bit absurd. With no war going on and the election focused on the economy there would be no need to nominate a war hero and Dick Gephart would be the likely nominee. At least IMO.

Also sounded vaguely like neocon propoganda in places, the liberals protesting how Bin Laden was captured? fucking bullshit
 
Nassirisimo

Nassirisimo

Wow, now he really is bad at AH. Does he know anything at all about the Middle East? Aside from Saudi, the other governments he mentioned as falling are some of the most stable in the ME, and that would be unlikely to change.

Also, seeing as how al-Qaeda had already attacked US targets, I hardly see the US population rising up when it comes out that they have been largely destroyed.

Niall Ferguson, you fail at alternate history even more then regular history.
 

Orville_third

Banned
Well, Al-Quaida would have tried something. It's grown more popular thanks to Bin Laden's stands against the US. Of course the new "Al-Quaidas" are just taking the name and methodology and goals- but not the leadership. In addition, the likely decline in support for US hyperpower and foreign military intervention has happened thanks to our overreach in Afghanistan and Iraq, to say nothing of people actually making our intervention an issue.
 
Jonathan Kan

Jonathan Kan

JoeMulk said:
Also sounded vaguely like neocon propoganda in places, the liberals protesting how Bin Laden was captured? fucking bullshit
Click to expand...

Unfortunately he is one of the few mainstream historians who took AH seriously…:(

I also doubt GWB Administration would handover OBL to Saudi Arabia, he already committed several counts of Federal Crime (1998 U.S. Embassy bombings. Not sure did 1993 WTC bombing and USS Cole attack count though). OTOH I guess GWB would order special force to kill OBL and co. on site. Since brought him to the United States to stand trial, would reveal earlier cooperation between OBL and the US.
 

Caesar Australis

Banned
Anyone else think GWB's first term, without the War on Terror to focus on, would be rather empty? He'd probably get NCLB through(though of a more leftwing form), but I wouldn't be surprised if his Medicare part D push gets tripped by the Republican right like his immigration reform did OTL. So come 2004 he just have to run on having been a good caretaker... and I don't see public outrage at the death of Osama Bin Laden, the Dem's would surely focus their campaign on the debt instead...

As for Saudi Arabia falling, he might have a point. It should be remembered that Iraq and Afghanistan served as magnets for Islamist revolutionaries. If not drawn there, they might cause some trouble in places like Saudi Arabia instead. I certainly don't see them staying quiet. Especially since they would have a few more years without governments focusing on stamping them out, and with Taliban Afghanistan as a base.
 
Last edited:

lloyd007

Without 9/11 Bush's first term is probably pretty boring. The Dems retake congress in '02 and push things more to the 'center'. NCLB gets passed as does Medicare Part D. The '04 elections have Bush running as a "Vote for me. I'm not objectionable at all!" With the Dem candidate (probably not Kerry) winning or losing on how the US thinks about the economy and the Reps in congress likewise either losing or regaining control of congress on the same.

The overall big structural economic problems like the housing bubble are still going to hit in 2007-2010 and Bush is seen as a firmly mediocre president rather than the ultra polarizing figure he is OTL.
 

SlideAway

Caesar Australis said:
Anyone else think GWB's first term, without the War on Terror to focus on, would be rather empty? He'd probably get NCLB through(though of a more leftwing form), but I wouldn't be surprised if his Medicare part D push gets tripped by the Republican right like his immigration reform did OTL. So come 2004 he just have to run on having been a good caretaker... and I don't see public outrage at the death of Osama Bin Laden, the Dem's would surely focus their campaign on the debt instead...

As for Saudi Arabia falling, he might have a point. It should be remembered that Iraq and Afghanistan served as magnets for Islamist revolutionaries. If not drawn there, they might cause some trouble in places like Saudi Arabia instead. I certainly don't see them staying quiet. Especially since they would have a few more years without governments focusing on stamping them out, and with Taliban Afghanistan as a base.
Click to expand...

The Saudi government isn't going to fall. And even if it did, it's replacement wouldn't be Al Qaeda. While there is discontent, the monarchy commands a lot of genuine support among Saudis.
 

Files

I already thought ferguson was just terrible, but woah.

"Osama bin Laden issues a fierce denunciation of the U.S. from his Saudi prison cell. It triggers a wave of popular anger in the Middle East that topples any regime seen as too close to Washington."

how can someone write this and think that the level of popular anger in the middle east would somehow be higher then OTL without 2 concurrent american occupations??
 

Orville_third

Banned
Files said:
I already thought ferguson was just terrible, but woah.

"Osama bin Laden issues a fierce denunciation of the U.S. from his Saudi prison cell. It triggers a wave of popular anger in the Middle East that topples any regime seen as too close to Washington."

how can someone write this and think that the level of popular anger in the middle east would somehow be higher then OTL without 2 concurrent american occupations??
Click to expand...
They think the Bush Administration's course was the right way- or perhaps too lenient?
 

Makemakean

Files said:
I already thought ferguson was just terrible, but woah.

"Osama bin Laden issues a fierce denunciation of the U.S. from his Saudi prison cell. It triggers a wave of popular anger in the Middle East that topples any regime seen as too close to Washington."

how can someone write this and think that the level of popular anger in the middle east would somehow be higher then OTL without 2 concurrent american occupations??
Click to expand...

I'm curious about how the man can believe that Arabs are so stupid that a single denunciation by Osama of the US from his prison cell (I dunno about Saudi prisons, but I'm quite sure that they do not really allow the inmates to make televised speeches or even the most rough videos in there) would lead to a massive popular Islamist revolt across the Middle East. Is he assuming that the overwhelming majority of Arabs are so politically naive that they'd actually follow a nut job like Osama? Why didn't they do that when Osama tried before?

And I don't understand why the Democrats would really protest the elimination of a terrorist organization that was behind several bombings against US embassies by covert operations, especially when the Clinton Administration had no problem with capturing other al-Qaida terrorists like Ramzi Yousef. They never had any problems with al-Qaida terrorists being captured in the first place. They had tried to blow up the World Trade Center back in 1993! Why would anyone object to covert operations finding these terrorist scumbags? Hell, the Bush-directed covert operations seemed to have done the work surprisingly humanely, seeing that the terrorists weren't even killed on spot but in fact put in prisons...

Most likely, the overwhelming majority of Democrats would probably just be annoyed that this didn't happen late during the Clinton Administration, and then try to steal the credit anyway. "Well sure, the operation was carried out during the Bush Administration", the liberal pundits would say, "But we mustn't forget how much they relied upon information collected while Bill Clinton still occupied the Oval Office..."

In the Arab Spring in 2011, Saddam Hussein experiences heavy difficulties as popular uprisings are against him. It is possible that the US (far less interested in hawkish policies) eventually reluctantly sides with the rebels and Hussein is finally captured sometime during the summer of 2011. Cheering rebels take Baghdad happily and within a couple of years, a US-friendly democratic Iraq is set up.

Oh, and in September 2011, the US debt is significantly lower, as there's really never been any political pressure to get into wars in the Middle East.

Come to think of it: I'm convinced that the world would have been a much better place without 9/11, and I find it somewhat tasteless of Niall Ferguson to try make the case that it was good that 9/11 happened, because otherwise we would have some scenario with Osama bin Ladin running Saudi Arabia.
 

B_Munro

Makemakean said:
I
Come to think of it: I'm convinced that the world would have been a much better place without 9/11, and I find it somewhat tasteless of Niall Ferguson to try make the case that it was good that 9/11 happened, because otherwise we would have some scenario with Osama bin Ladin running Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...

Well, he probably thinks it was a necessary wakeup call to the Evil that is IslamoFascism. After all,

"Osama bin Laden issues a fierce denunciation of the U.S. from his Saudi prison cell. It triggers a wave of popular anger in the Middle East that topples any regime seen as too close to Washington."

this is a man who clearly thinks Osama bin Laden has Superpowers

Bruce
 
Nassirisimo

Nassirisimo

Anyone else insulted by the sly accusation that Muslims would all listen to a guy like Bin Laden? I knew that he bought into that Eurabia shit, but come on! How can someone so stupid get so far in academia?

Seriously, Ferguson should stop listening to his retarded girlfriend and just realize that Muslims aren't actually controlled by a hive, extremist mind.
 

SlideAway

I read Pity of War years ago and really liked it. Every crazy thing of his I've read since makes me reconsider that initial reaction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top