Our Boring Decade: No 9/11

Extreme hyperbole in the title. Say key al-Qaeda cells were miraculously wiped out by Saudi and Pakistani authorities, and Clinton at some point made some hush-hush deals with the Taliban, indirectly resulting in the deaths of certain operatives. Maybe even Bin Laden! Anyways, no 9/11 happens, and the world continues to march down towards the end of history.

So what's the 2000s about? A lamer version of the '90s with the GOP in charge of the U.S.? Is Behind Enemy Lines and Tears of the Sun the most excitement America will experience in foreign intervention?
 

Sachyriel

Banned
No, America seems to be on a bend to screw with it's own world reputation.

Seriously, This Guy provides all the evidence I'd need to say that. They appointed a guy who thought the UN wasn't real to the post of UN Ambassador.

That's just a single 'What The Fuck Were You Thinking?" moment the world had because of American action.

So, it'd probably lose much of the sympathy around the world after George Bush screws up the response to a few hurricanes, invades Iraq (they can deploy much more troops without Afghanistan as a theater; I'm guessing he still does it), makes political gaffs, screw with the world economy, not help the American Education system, expand the War on Drugs (He can't put all the troops into Iraq, so he expands GWoD), Gets the PATRIOT act through (the name alone will get it through in most ATLs) and he probably doesn't help any matters when he cannot say certain words/not sound like an idiot.

In short, America in that OTL receives treatment like today, except we're treating them like this in 2004, about 4 years before we are now.
 
Colin Powell as a Presidential Candidate in 2008?

Not bad. Also, I dont think Bush would go for Invasion of Iraq, solely because he wouldnt be able to make the case fly without the security breach that was 9/11.

There would be no example of terrorists getting in and doing a whole mess of damage with planes, let alone nukes. So the main fear appeal is gone.
 
The question is would the major bugbear in the U.S. be fear of Midwestern militias.

I mean, they still have all of their stores of Y2K supplies and assault rifles because that durn Bush is vetoing the bans!

Also, what the hell.
 

Sachyriel

Banned
Not bad. Also, I dont think Bush would go for Invasion of Iraq, solely because he wouldnt be able to make the case fly without the security breach that was 9/11.

There would be no example of terrorists getting in and doing a whole mess of damage with planes, let alone nukes. So the main fear appeal is gone.

The US needs to do something with the large military, it's kind of useless if it's not being used as a big stick, and since there is no Afghanistan, while the connection between Afghanistan and Iraq was tenuous at best, and nearly always debated.

I guess they could be doing peace-keeping missions and such, but where's the profit in going in, mopping up, overseeing a UN-approved election and leaving again? No extra profits for Haliburton or Kellogs.

As the US proved when it invaded another country because of a Fruit Companies vast fields being nationalized, it is all about the Benjamins baby. It would invade Iraq to start making sure Iraq did not switch from selling Oil pinned to Dollars to Oil pinned to the Euro.

It was supposedly planning to, and since you can only buy oil from OPEC in dollars, shifting to the Euro would have taken the American Dollar's ability to float on the International Money Market. Well, maybe not all of it's floaty-ness, but it would have been an example of how to hurt them, and the Americans just can't allow a nation like Iraq to hurt them, it makes them look weak.

So, they still invade.
 
If Bush did invade Iraq he might have wound up a one-termer like his dad. And since he relied on Rumsfeld's vision of the military, it's possible he still wouldn't have sent enough troops early on.

Then you might have had a President Kerry running for re-election (with Obama or Hillary as his running mate) right now.
 

Sachyriel

Banned
If Bush did invade Iraq he might have wound up a one-termer like his dad. And since he relied on Rumsfeld's vision of the military, it's possible he still wouldn't have sent enough troops early on.

Then you might have had a President Kerry running for re-election (with Obama or Hillary as his running mate) right now.

I hear Americans tend to keep war-presidents in office until they die or their term limit is up.
 
Bush's presidency would have remained weak from the badly contested 2000 elections. Furthermore, he would have almost certainly have cut taxes to increase the national debt and would have enjoyed little political capital.

Finally, you have other problems, like the Blackout of 2003 and the Economy, while not shocked by 9-11, would probably be lukewarm, if not a little chilly. Bush is going to rack up some budget deficits.

With bad feelings from Florida remaining and a large budget deficit emerging, I think GWB would be a one termer.
 
Extreme hyperbole in the title. Say key al-Qaeda cells were miraculously wiped out by Saudi and Pakistani authorities, and Clinton at some point made some hush-hush deals with the Taliban, indirectly resulting in the deaths of certain operatives. Maybe even Bin Laden! Anyways, no 9/11 happens, and the world continues to march down towards the end of history.

So what's the 2000s about? A lamer version of the '90s with the GOP in charge of the U.S.? Is Behind Enemy Lines and Tears of the Sun the most excitement America will experience in foreign intervention?

Bush loses in 2004. Kerry administration, anyone?
 
Forget Afghanistan, Iraq or the like the real focus on US defence policy is going to be China. Already in early 2001 Rumsfeld was moving up the pressure on China it was only 9/11, which diverted the US attention. No 9/11 means that the US military is going to be focused on how to limited the spread of Chinese influence and over the long term reform their army to face a Chinese threat.
 
The US needs to do something with the large military, it's kind of useless if it's not being used as a big stick, and since there is no Afghanistan, while the connection between Afghanistan and Iraq was tenuous at best, and nearly always debated.

I guess they could be doing peace-keeping missions and such, but where's the profit in going in, mopping up, overseeing a UN-approved election and leaving again? No extra profits for Haliburton or Kellogs.

As the US proved when it invaded another country because of a Fruit Companies vast fields being nationalized, it is all about the Benjamins baby. It would invade Iraq to start making sure Iraq did not switch from selling Oil pinned to Dollars to Oil pinned to the Euro.

It was supposedly planning to, and since you can only buy oil from OPEC in dollars, shifting to the Euro would have taken the American Dollar's ability to float on the International Money Market. Well, maybe not all of it's floaty-ness, but it would have been an example of how to hurt them, and the Americans just can't allow a nation like Iraq to hurt them, it makes them look weak.

So, they still invade.

Without 9/11, I don't think Bush would be able to get away with that, assuming your theory is even true.
 

Sachyriel

Banned
Without 9/11, I don't think Bush would be able to get away with that, assuming your theory is even true.

Hmmm...what to tell the people of America in 2003?

That we're invading a sovereign nation to make sure we have a line of credit based upon military power that extends past the expiry date that no one can really guess at in this new world economy where communists are the capitalists best friend due to the fact we intimidated the OPEC signatories into pinning their oil to the Dollar in hopes of having a commodity-backed currency though it's not in our own homeland while the people we take it from are usually third world nations that desperately need market-value trading and have tried to get it before?

[Not really sure if that can be a whole sentence, but, for the sake of dramaticness, it is]

Or do we try and tell them it's terrorists running rampant and add to their fears by over-hyping a few old shells that could be used for nerve gas?

Well, the answer is obvious, and it's what they did.

The United Nations had a corrupt food-for-oil program, we've pretty much all heard of it. The UNSG's son was fingered it was so big. But, Iraq had about 10 billion dollars worth of oil it wanted to trade into Euros, so when it did, the Americans got angry, because OPEC is supposed to make sure this doesn't happen.

The unprovoked "shock and awe" attack on Iraq was to serve several economic purposes: (1) Safeguard the U.S. economy by re-denominating Iraqi oil in U.S. dollars, instead of the euro, to try to lock the world back into dollar oil trading so the U.S. would remain the dominant world power-militarily and economically. (2) Send a clear message to other oil producers as to what will happen to them if they abandon the dollar matrix. (3) Place the second largest oil reserve under direct U.S. control. (4) Create a subject state where the U.S. can maintain a huge force to dominate the Middle East and its oil. (5) Create a severe setback to the European Union and its euro, the only trading block and currency strong enough to attack U.S. dominance of the world through trade. (6) Free its forces (ultimately) so that it can begin operations against those countries that are trying to disengage themselves from U.S. dollar imperialism-such as Venezuela, where the U.S. has supported the attempted overthrow of a democratic government by a junta more friendly to U. S. business/oil interests.


Found here

Anyways, the idea is sound. America doesn't want the oil to be gotten by military gains; The market doesn't demand the US get it through military means (Like Japan in WW2). It requires America to keep the Oil-backed currency flowing through the US, which siezing Iraq can make sure keeps happening.
 
Well Iraq was in discussions with OPEC and the Eurozone about converting to Petroeuros (Just as many doubt the US was far from acting totally in the name of liberty, France was far from acting totally in the name of peace).

Really Bush did have a Saddam shaped chip on his shoulder from day one in the White House. However as others have said I doubt he'd have the political capital of the War on Terror to get away with it, probably just some cruise missles, one of them no doubt hitting a school or orphanage as they tend to do, further plummeting his ratings.

Dubya in my eyes was destined for one-term, to be remembered as a Gerald Ford figure at best.

No war I wouldnt be totally shocked to see the GOP back someone else in 2004, obvious suicide but given his track record by then sans 9/11 he's just got little going for him.

That said, was Kerry destined to be Democratic candidate? Did Gore have any wish to take part then, because he'd probably be very strong opponent in the TTL.

Could Howard Dean with better organisation and no "Dean Scream" moment beat Kerry and the superdelegates?
 
Would the American people be more willing to accept the necessity of invading Iraq without 9/11?

Without 9/11, the whole "terrorists running rampant" meme is a lot less scary.
 
Gore did not want a re-match with Bush in 2004, OTL. But that was after 9/11 and an invasion of Iraq. If Bush's first term had proceeded "business as usual" and he was in lagging in the polls, Gore might have reconsidered.

Or, if the GOP convinced Bush to step down and endorse somebody like McCain, who could boast a stronger military record.

Gore might pick Edwards as a running mate to capture the southern votes he needed more than those of the north.

Now, who would be McCain's running mate?
 
I know that as far as storytelling goes you need a conflict to make it work and that the OP title was made to attract viewers... but don't you think that considering associating "boring" with "peaceful" is somewhat an unhappy choice, even in fiction?
 
Top