Our Boring Decade: No 9/11

Anaxagoras

Banned
Without 9/11, I doubt the Republicans could have mustered the political capital necessary for the massive increases in defense spending and there would have been no move for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. And while the tax cuts for the richest Americans would still have passed, they could have been revoked after Bush was defeated in 2004.

The end result is that the treasury would be in much better shape in regards to deficit spending. This, in turn, means that the dollar would be stronger, oil cheaper and the economy in generally better shape.
 

Sachyriel

Banned
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.

Well, since Iraq wasn't about terrorism, but about the possibility of terrorism. But, since the Hyper-power needed a measuring stick to measure it's power, it chose fundamentalist Islam to go after in our time line, but in A. Reality, without a large-scale 9/11 attack, perhaps they don't go after Iraq.

I can see where we're actually disagreeing about the POD.

You are all pointing to the lack of a Terrorist Incident, I'm talking about the inclusive Terrorist Plotting. Not all targets were hit, the White-House plane went into the pentagon, and another went down in a field.

The idea is no Incident, so the plot can be uncovered, stopped, but they still go on a rampage in the middle east, starting with Iraq for the economic reasons (An army marches on it's stomach, so they go for Iraq first).

America is kept in the dark about who the plotters were, though Afghanistan is obviously on the list.

So, 9/11 doesn't have to happen for a Global War on Terror, but it speeds up the invasion of Afghanistan/delays the invasion of Iraq (whichever your view may be, it's right).

But not much changes.
 
I don't think Kerry has a lock on the nomination in 2004.
First, there are those who stayed out of the race because they didn't want to deal with the mess of the war. Clinton's the big name on this list, though she might not run since Bill just left the White House four years earlier and people would still be burned out on them (possibly why she's not in the general IOTL 2008.)
Warner in Virginia is pretty appealing. Or Feingold. With no war, a more liberal candidate has a better chance (still an outside chance, but with different circumstances he might've run.)

Second, there's less call for a veteran to "prove" sympathy with the troops. Kerry's fundamentals just don't stack up as well given no 9/11. But in this atmosphere Howard Dean makes even less sense, as he was the anti-war candidate. His voters go elsewhere, and I'm not sure if they go to Kerry. Certainly Feingold, if he runs, and Feingold is a much stronger candidate.


As for issues, the decade will not be boring. Even with butterflies, New Orleans is a disaster waiting to happen. And the Minneapolis bridge collapse is going to happen at pretty much exactly the same time. If the bridge collapses before the levvies are tested, maybe a Democratic president can get a raft of infrastructure improvements through Congress and save the Big Easy.

And of course the financial crisis seems pretty much destined to happen. If a Democrat gets elected in 2004 and raises the interest rates back up on government bonds, some of the money going into mortgage bundles is going to be refunneled, but there was SO MUCH money out there to invest, I think the extra cash is just absorbed and more people just have farther to fall.
Their response to the crisis will be different, but then that kind of goes under future history and I'm hornswaggled as to how that'll turn out as it is.
 
The main issue pre-9/11 was globalisation and a lot of *analysis* connected the two issues. There is no reason it wouldn't be an issue in most of the world(*). I think we would be more preocupied with people like Chavez.

(*) I think Attac and the anti-globalisation movement would have failed in Sweden even without 9/11. They where headed that way, growing increasingly irrelevant because they didn't thik things trough and just became famous over night.
 
Well, since Iraq wasn't about terrorism, but about the possibility of terrorism. But, since the Hyper-power needed a measuring stick to measure it's power, it chose fundamentalist Islam to go after in our time line, but in A. Reality, without a large-scale 9/11 attack, perhaps they don't go after Iraq.

I can see where we're actually disagreeing about the POD.

You are all pointing to the lack of a Terrorist Incident, I'm talking about the inclusive Terrorist Plotting. Not all targets were hit, the White-House plane went into the pentagon, and another went down in a field.

The idea is no Incident, so the plot can be uncovered, stopped, but they still go on a rampage in the middle east, starting with Iraq for the economic reasons (An army marches on it's stomach, so they go for Iraq first).

America is kept in the dark about who the plotters were, though Afghanistan is obviously on the list.

So, 9/11 doesn't have to happen for a Global War on Terror, but it speeds up the invasion of Afghanistan/delays the invasion of Iraq (whichever your view may be, it's right).

But not much changes.

The problem is that if you said "plane hijackers" before 9-11 most people had the idea of DB Cooper (give me X parachutes, a full tank of gas and X dollars and I'll let everyone but the flight crew go so that they can fly me to Canada/Mexico). Not Kamakaze pilots dead-set on crashing into a building.

Terrorist were the same way, they were annoying, barbaric pests but they were an issue to Israel/Palestine (if foreign) or crazy, right-wing nutballs with a bag of fertilizer, some gunpowder and a fuse. (OKC bombings) (if domestic). Foreign terrorists weren't our problem, and the FBI could take out the domestic ones.
 

Sachyriel

Banned
The problem is that if you said "plane hijackers" before 9-11 most people had the idea of DB Cooper (give me X parachutes, a full tank of gas and X dollars and I'll let everyone but the flight crew go so that they can fly me to Canada/Mexico). Not Kamakaze pilots dead-set on crashing into a building.

Terrorist were the same way, they were annoying, barbaric pests but they were an issue to Israel/Palestine (if foreign) or crazy, right-wing nutballs with a bag of fertilizer, some gunpowder and a fuse. (OKC bombings) (if domestic). Foreign terrorists weren't our problem, and the FBI could take out the domestic ones.

Foreign terrorists are everyone's problem, naturally. Do you forget the dude who shot Franz Ferdinad sparked off WW1?
 
Foreign terrorists are everyone's problem, naturally. Do you forget the dude who shot Franz Ferdinad sparked off WW1?

They are everyone's problem. But before WW1, the US, or France, or Germany would have considered The Black Hand (or whatever that gunman's organization was) to be Austria-Hungary's problem. Its based on the human impulse to "pass the buck" and the old, "it doesn't effect me, so why the frack should I care?" opinion that holds until it does effect you.

Thats why nothing is being done about Dafur except some talking about how it is so horrible. The major governments don't see it as directly effecting them so they couldn't care less.
 
Well, since Iraq wasn't about terrorism, but about the possibility of terrorism. But, since the Hyper-power needed a measuring stick to measure it's power, it chose fundamentalist Islam to go after in our time line, but in A. Reality, without a large-scale 9/11 attack, perhaps they don't go after Iraq.

Not entirely. Iraq was supposed to be the proving ground for the Wolfowitz Doctrine and the Neo-Con hawk's plan. They wanted the USA to spread democracy by invading countries that had dictators for example Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
 
well, if most of the army was still free in early 2008 when it went down in Colombia and Venezuela, the USA might have intervened down there. Venezuela, after all, is full of oil and a hell of a lot closer than Iraq.

Plus, Chavez was (and still is) basically turning most of Latin America against the USA. If we could boast that we helped take down the FARC in Colombia, that could help bring other Latin American countries closer. Think the big tiger, Brazil
 
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.

There may not have been a large military if 9/11 did not happen. We drew down our military after the end of the Cold War and the Persian Gulf War.

We had the peace dividend in the 90's and without a direct threat I think that would have continued.
 

Sachyriel

Banned
They are everyone's problem. But before WW1, the US, or France, or Germany would have considered The Black Hand (or whatever that gunman's organization was) to be Austria-Hungary's problem. Its based on the human impulse to "pass the buck" and the old, "it doesn't effect me, so why the frack should I care?" opinion that holds until it does effect you.

Thats why nothing is being done about Dafur except some talking about how it is so horrible. The major governments don't see it as directly effecting them so they couldn't care less.

Yes, and there are ships off the Somali coast right now, ones that have some area secured and could cure some huge problems like massacres in Darfur, Piracy and provide security on Africa's East coast if there would be a bit more force added to the task force there, and the upper echelons decided to do something about it.

The idea of 'Hey, this doesn't affect me' should have been thrown out the window with the formation of the UN, as the very idea is that if you want a voice and vote in the UN, you have to accept we're all on Earth together. Emphasis for effect, but that is the idea, right?

Just because some people discriminate based on race/religion/wealth doesn't mean that this apathy will transfer to the issues they do care about for those reasons. Iraq would be invaded because they did it before, and kicked ass. Now, they need to beat them down again to make sure they're in the economic loop.

Not entirely. Iraq was supposed to be the proving ground for the Wolfowitz Doctrine and the Neo-Con hawk's plan. They wanted the USA to spread democracy by invading countries that had dictators for example Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

So, after five years and a few thousand American deaths, the democracy in Iraq should be free to sell it's oil in any denomination it wants, right? I mean they died for Iraqi social freedom (not economic), along with American Business Interests. Which do you think the Americans are going to prioritize with their puppets in Iraq, the American Hegemony or a underdeveloped nation that was just bombed to shit?
 
George W. Bush is a one-term President without 9/11 to prop him up. Even when he played the fear card in 2004, he still won only 51% of the popular vote. His approval ratings were sinking fast before 9/11. Without 9/11, Bush becomes the Republican version of Jimmy Carter.

The big 2004 election issues would've been the flailing economy and cultural issues - both of which would've favored Democrats. The recession that we're seeing now would've happened earlier without the post-9/11 consumer boom to keep it running longer (although it would probably be smaller than what we're facing now). The culture wars would definitely have been more active, with Rove being able to focus exclusively on them. The Religious Right would've had more early success, but before long, you would've seen a backlash from liberals and secularists (as we're starting to see now). The most likely Democratic candidate would've been someone with economic expertise and liberal social values, not a focus on foreign policy. This automatically butterflies John Kerry, Wesley Clark and Howard Dean away, as Dean was the anti-war candidate and Kerry and Clark were the pro-military candidates. Joe Lieberman, John Edwards and Al Gore would be the most likely choices for the Democratic nominee.
 
Has anyone mentioned Katrina. Cause it would be interesting if the Kerry administration was the ruling one as opposed to the Bush administration.
 
Has anyone mentioned Katrina. Cause it would be interesting if the Kerry administration was the ruling one as opposed to the Bush administration.

I did. I think the consensus on the board is that hurricanes are definitely subject to butterflies, considering the original wording of that metaphor. But that said, the New Orleans infrastructure was crumbling anyway, and the increasing number of hurricanes resulting from climate change means that chances were always on the rise that a Katrina-like situation would happen.

The question then is, how does the president (probably NOT Kerry, though it doesn't matter) respond to the crisis. It would be pretty difficult to handle it worse than Bush did, and rather likely that it would be handled much better. Still, ATL's can never know how bad things could have gotten, so there will be a public outcry.
The poor will still be worse off, and in New Orleans the poor are majority African American.

My guess is any Democratic president in office would respond something like this:
1) Invest a ton of money into improving our infrastructure (so maybe the MN bridge accident doesn't occur, or if it occurs before an alt-Katrina event, maybe the levvies get fixed first.)
2) Invest a ton of money on improving the lot of the urban poor everywhere.

In this world, the urban/rural political divide is, if anything, more heightened. But if we make it even a little bit easier to live in the cities (and that's what money to infrastructure and QoL programs do) more people move to metropolitan areas and the Republican's shrinking coalition fails to attract anything close to a majority.
Similar to OTL, but ITTL we're talking about the Democrats winning the quality of life argument straight up rather than QoL mixed with anti-war sentiment.
 
My guess is any Democratic president in office would respond something like this:
1) Invest a ton of money into improving our infrastructure (so maybe the MN bridge accident doesn't occur, or if it occurs before an alt-Katrina event, maybe the levvies get fixed first.)

2004 is too late for that, or at least too late for Katrina, probably. It takes years for federally sponsored construction projects to even get approval, and then there's the time to actually construct the things. There is a lot of bureaucracy involved in infrastructure development - ask any Bostonian about the Big Dig.
 
Bush loses in 2004. Kerry administration, anyone?

Kerry would most probably have not been the Democratic nominee for President. Remember, Kerry was chosen on "electability" because the Democrats were trying to defeat a much stronger Bush.

With a rather weak Bush, that logic would not have applied. Far more likely someone like Dean would have been the nominee.
 
Oh I'm sure Bush would still do something, in terms of Iraq, had 9/11 not occurred. But it'd probably be along the lines of what the previous administration had done, as in bombing "key facilities that produce weapons of mass destruction" and trying in vain to get weapons inspectors into Iraq, while the media would continue to feed upon the fear of Saddam Hussein.

9/11 gave a better reason, at the time, to go into Iraq, (as Saddam had been a thorn in our sides for a long time, not to mention the long-held suspicion of WMDs since the 90's, suspected ties to terrorist groups, etc.) than just outright saying "Guess what everyone, we're invading Iraq! Meet ya there."

So I doubt there'd be an invasion of Iraq. 2001-2004 proves mostly uneventful, and I'm sure Bush would probably be re-elected as a result. He got re-elected in '04 under much worse situations than just allegedly "stealing the 2000 election." The economy wouldn't be too big an issue, as it was doing relatively well during the '04 elections in OTL. Without 9/11 to play holy hell upon the markets, (which it did) who knows what things would be like in this ATL?

*shrugs* And who knows how this would all effect the response to Hurricane Katrina. That was a colossal f'up on everyone on Capital Hill's part.
 
I think you'd might see more investigation into the Chandra Levy and Gary Condit case from 2001 onward to where it would be taken to conclusion. I really don't know much of the results, but it seems like 9/11 wiped that off the frontlines. IIRC, the big news stories were Condit/Levy, overage little leaguers, and shark bites. Here in Pittsburgh, on 9/11 the big story was the first Krispie Kreme donut shop opening up, that is, until 9/11 occured later that morning. Beyond that, I guess the various scenarios here could have happened but I figure this story had to be mentioned. I often said that the one person "relieved" that 9/11 happened was Gary Condit in the fact that it booted him from the headlines to the sidelines.
 
2004 is too late for that, or at least too late for Katrina, probably. It takes years for federally sponsored construction projects to even get approval, and then there's the time to actually construct the things. There is a lot of bureaucracy involved in infrastructure development - ask any Bostonian about the Big Dig.

That's assuming Katrina happens in 2005, which it might not. They'll more than likely be a storm called Katrina, since they pick those names in advance, but it's very unlikely, given butterflies, that it takes the same path. Weather is fickle.
But given the increasing number of super storms due to climate change, and the relatively likely trajectories New Orleans sits on, a Katrina-like storm hitting the city is certainly not out of the question.

If the bridge goes as per OTL and the ball starts rolling on infrastructure improvements, and the alt-Katrina doesn't hit until 2008 or 9 or whenever, the city might be just fine.

And the Big Dig is a mess because it was always just someone's idea of what Boston needed, never a proven thing.
If you're a president looking at infrastructure improvement and consider the continued health and safety of the city of New Orleans to be a good thing, you send in the Army Corps of Engineers and you give them the materials to do the job and it gets done.

Sure, there will undoubtedly be some red tape, but nothing like the Big Dig- which is hardly a fair example of viable infrastructure improvements. It's like saying to your neighbor in his garden, "Why bother with a wall? Did you hear how much trouble the Chinese had with there's?"
 
Top