The World in 2017, with no 9/11 Terrorist Attacks?.
- Thread starter Haddock123
- Start date
Greenville
Banned
Overall there is no occupying American military presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, or the rest of the Middle East. Al-Qaeda still attempted other attacks on the United States and the West even if 9/11 was prevented or never occurred. Osama Bin Laden probably is still alive and active planning against American interests. Hundreds of thousands of people across the globe otherwise killed in drone strikes and casualties of war are alive today without American military intervention. Without these invasions, North Korea is also not a nuclear power. The United States may also focus more military assets near attempting to curb Chinese military interference in the Pacific.
The global recession still occurs regardless around 2008, though probably on a smaller scale and lasting less time without American military interference. The federal deficit isn't very high, although is still mostly in debt.
2011 still sees the rise of the Arab Spring. Armed conflicts arise not just in Syria or Libya, but Iraq as well. Civil war rages in Iraq with rebel factions seeking the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The American military, of course, funds the rebels in each nation fighting against their respective dictators. It probably continues intervention with a no-fly zone in each to protect civilians and destroying military units in the process. Each nation is still deadlocked in a civil war in the present day except Libya. All of the chaos give Al-Qaeda the chance is wanted to recruit and expand into these regions.
Significantly larger cells exist across the region and launch terror attacks against the West hoping to create division. American intervenes more to eliminate targets of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere just as OTL.
America generally stays the same in most of the major events.
The global recession still occurs regardless around 2008, though probably on a smaller scale and lasting less time without American military interference. The federal deficit isn't very high, although is still mostly in debt.
2011 still sees the rise of the Arab Spring. Armed conflicts arise not just in Syria or Libya, but Iraq as well. Civil war rages in Iraq with rebel factions seeking the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The American military, of course, funds the rebels in each nation fighting against their respective dictators. It probably continues intervention with a no-fly zone in each to protect civilians and destroying military units in the process. Each nation is still deadlocked in a civil war in the present day except Libya. All of the chaos give Al-Qaeda the chance is wanted to recruit and expand into these regions.
Significantly larger cells exist across the region and launch terror attacks against the West hoping to create division. American intervenes more to eliminate targets of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere just as OTL.
America generally stays the same in most of the major events.
US politics could be dramatically scrambled. Without 9/11 there is no guarantee that Kerry would have become the Democratic nominee and no guarantee that Bush would have been reelected. If a Democrat wins in 2004, the advent of the recession might elect a Republican in 2008. By 2012 and 2016, who knows? Also, the 2002 midterms were a disaster for Democrats and adversely affected how they did after redistricting. The normal pattern would be for them to make gains in 2002 (IOTL, they lost seats in both).
no September 11 outrage Enron is HUGE gw Bush very unpopular. Maybe it butterflies Wellstone's air crash, he would not be worrying about re-election in such a context.
Maybe he is President from Jan 05, big effort to deal with corporate corruption. different economic events than otl
Maybe he is President from Jan 05, big effort to deal with corporate corruption. different economic events than otl
Even without 9/11, the Taliban would of fucked up Afghanistan regardless. Bush of course would lose reelection like the person mentioned above. I don't know what else could happen though, I think it definite that Great Recession would happen regardless still.
But if there no focus on foreign terrorism, then I wonder would the US begin to focus on domestic terrorism like they did in the 90's. Who knows honestly.
But if there no focus on foreign terrorism, then I wonder would the US begin to focus on domestic terrorism like they did in the 90's. Who knows honestly.
While pretty much anything that has Wellstone not being on that specific flight at that specific time would butterfly his crash, just more of an interesting note, he was actually leaving a campaign event in the cities with Mondale and Ted Kennedy to fly to the funeral of a state rep's Dad in northern MN.
Well, the US will still get into Afghanistan. The World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the African embassy bombings in 98, and the bombing of the Cole in 2000 collectively gave the USA sufficient causus belli for Bill Clinton to seriously consider ordering the invasion of Afghanistan.
He did not do it since was too close of the 2000 election time. Going into Afghanistan right before election would serious hunt Al Gore chances of wining and the Dems in general.
Now, if the POD is the plotters are captured before they can act, this would be icing on the cake for war against Terrorism.
So, we would still a War on Terror and Invasion of Afghanistan under Bush. But very different without 9/11 and later the Invasion of Iraq.
He did not do it since was too close of the 2000 election time. Going into Afghanistan right before election would serious hunt Al Gore chances of wining and the Dems in general.
Now, if the POD is the plotters are captured before they can act, this would be icing on the cake for war against Terrorism.
So, we would still a War on Terror and Invasion of Afghanistan under Bush. But very different without 9/11 and later the Invasion of Iraq.
Last edited:
The plotters get caught and you might have a few cruise missiles get lobbed like we did in 1998, but the support for a War on Terror won't be there. That means we continue publishing bombings of Iraq and Afghanistan as we were doing in the 90s until a big one hits the West.
The WH didn't fully appreciate even after 911 how much more they could have done that year against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Even with 911 Black Hawk Down syndrome which was the smaller more recient child of Vietnam War syndrome scared the piss out of the WH and Pentagon.
Not quite. You're correct that Clinton took Al Qaeda and their Taliban patrons very seriously, but Bush's advisers took a different tack on the matter. The difference between the Administrations is that Bush surrounded himself with structural realists, who assume a state-centric view of international politics. In this view, terrorists like Bin Laden were only dangerous because of the states that backed them, and for Bush and company, the most dangerous supporter of terrorism was Saddam. There's a reason why right after 9/11, Rumsfeld ordered his Department to investigate an Iraqi connection first. The only reason Bush invaded Afghanistan first was because we knew Bin Laden was there. If we hadn't been sure, he'd have invaded Iraq first because that's who he saw as the real driver behind Islamist terrorism.
But for the sake of the argument, let's say Bush goes into Afghanistan first. Even without 9/11, the al-Qaeda will still do something that will force the US to have boots on the ground in Afghanistan. We have a long list of shit they done to us, and will keep on doing.
Saddam never back any Islamist terrorism, that was not his thing. The real reason Bush went into Iraq was because W blame Saddam for his daddy losing in 92 and this was payback for him.
I just feel the groundwork for a Invasion of Afghanistan is there, it only need one speak to kick it off. The only way we can get into Iraq is when Saddam dies, and his sons and generals rips the Iraqi state apart and we have to go in to keep the order.
But...going with what you two are saying...what would happen if we have invaved Iraq first without 9/11?
Saddam backed a lot of Islamic terrorists in his day and harbored them as well including some of the biggest terrorist names of the 70s thru 90s. Obviously, the Bush WH in the run up to war believed Saddam was also using and enabling Monotheism and Jihad and Ansar al-Islam in 2002.
Not Bin Laden, but that wasn't entirely the point, the point was to scare the piss out of the Gulf Arab Kingdoms by taking down Saddam who was in the view of the Bush WH violating the terms of his parole in various ways to get the Gulf States to shut down their royals and others supporting AQ and other terror groups various ways.
The target may have been on paper Saddam, from the Bush WH prospective it was meant to send a message to all state sponsors of terror and states that just allow terror sponsors to get away with it.
The calculus for the WH was taking down Saddam they believed would cause several hundred American lives and the Bush WH while it wanted to take down Saddam (from before day one like most the public) they weren't going to do it unless events provided the public support for that level of casualties.
Last edited:
Archibald
Banned
Reading the post here I would say Afghanistan war would still happens if only to catch Bin Laden (WTC 1993, the 98' bombings, he was alredy the ennemy).
Iraq by contrast won't happen. Food price crisis of 2007 still happens, global economic crisis of 2008 , too, hence Arab spring by 2011.
Whoever will be president in 2004 and beyond is everyone guess. What is sure is that Obama crushed Hillary in 2008 because she had voted for the Iraq invasion and he had not. So maybe no Obama or later. Bush - McCain 2004 anybody ?
As for the 800 pounds gorilla - IRAQ. Without the invasion and without Paul fucking Bremer chaos, there is no ISIS a decade later. Yet be careful what you wish for - Saddam might be replaced by one of his two sons which were sadistic nutjobs - turning Iraq into another North Korea ?
It depends if they catch the 9/11 terrorists. what is sure is that the fuckers won't speak, even with torture. They will keep their mouth shut. Whatever, they will still be traced down to Afghanistan and Osama.
It depends whether the size of the terrorist plot is understood and goes public. There is a precedent: Bojinka.
Iraq by contrast won't happen. Food price crisis of 2007 still happens, global economic crisis of 2008 , too, hence Arab spring by 2011.
Whoever will be president in 2004 and beyond is everyone guess. What is sure is that Obama crushed Hillary in 2008 because she had voted for the Iraq invasion and he had not. So maybe no Obama or later. Bush - McCain 2004 anybody ?
As for the 800 pounds gorilla - IRAQ. Without the invasion and without Paul fucking Bremer chaos, there is no ISIS a decade later. Yet be careful what you wish for - Saddam might be replaced by one of his two sons which were sadistic nutjobs - turning Iraq into another North Korea ?
It depends if they catch the 9/11 terrorists. what is sure is that the fuckers won't speak, even with torture. They will keep their mouth shut. Whatever, they will still be traced down to Afghanistan and Osama.
It depends whether the size of the terrorist plot is understood and goes public. There is a precedent: Bojinka.
Last edited:
Iraq was already an enemy in the eyes of the public, check the polls on invading Iraq from 1992-2000 the desire for revisionism notwithstanding he was the biggest public enemy of the 90s until 911 in the eyes of the public. But, by the same point Bush wasn't going to invade with ground troops Iraq nor Afghanistan without an event that really enrages Americans and produces 70-90% public support for invasion numbers.
The last time that happened in Iraq as the polls above show is 1993 after Bush 41 attempted assassination.
More cruise missile strikes might happen for Afghanistan like we were doing against Iraq in 2001, but until of a major successful attack on the US mainland happens we aren't going to do an Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.
Last edited:
What about pulling another, larger Cole style attack in New York Harbor, or a attack on JFK? Or a more successful WTC 93 bombing?
I don't think any of those could be pulled together quickly if the 9/11 guys got caught and there was a corresponding increase in vigilance on the part of US security forces.
Any event that kills hundreds of Americans as in Paris 2015 sized American deaths somewhere would trigger an Operation Enduring Freedom lite mission in Afghanistan. A few dozens dead Americans would trigger more cruise missile strike on Afghanistan and SF raids.
All right. If plotters are not captured, then something like that can take place? (Not 9/11, but something that would lead to Iraq and Afghanistan.)