What if 9/11 never happened: Does Bush get reelected?

Hey everyone, I'm new here and it's my first post. I'm kind of learning, so be easy lol.


I don't know if this has been covered, but what does everyone think would happen if 9/11 never happened? How would it effect our National Security going forward? Would an event like 9/11 happen later on? Also, would Bush get reelected again? I don't think he would, I think 9/11 and the way he responded is the big thing that kept him in office.
 
I think Bush is more likely to be reelected. The economy isn't likely to be so terrible as to secure his defeat. He also isn't going to do something to motivate the Democratic base as much as his post-9/11 actions. He may want to invade Iraq-but that still probably wouldn't happen without 9/11.

He also probably wouldn't be facing John Kerry-Dick Gephardt would probably be the nominee if 2004 is more focused on Domestic issues. Him or John Edwards. Neither of those two candidates appear likely to beat Bush.

If Iraq still happens-and Bush makes the same decisions-he probably loses.
 
I'm doing a timeline on a no 9/11 Bush Presidency. Haven't gotten to 2004 yet, but give it a read. The link is in my signature.
 
I don't know if this has been covered, but what does everyone think would happen if 9/11 never happened?

In a general sense, I think America would continue as in the late 90s and the 00s up to 9/11. There wouldn't be the sudden spike in anti terrorism measures, things would be more focused on the post Soviet void and the evolving world around it. 9/11 was one of those landmark events that changed the course of America's history. Without it you'd see the general zeitgeist lumber onward without the massive impact of 9/11. So look at 2001 pre 9/11 and extrapolate from there.

My personal opinion is that things felt complacent and detached just before 9/11. The entire 90s felt like a hangover from the Cold War and we were really getting to the point where we sobered up, took a hot shower and wondered what we were going to do next. Without 9/11 to provide direction, I think the 00s would be defined by more national introspection. This would be both internal and external, with internal probably having the edge unless a big power (Russia, China) started throwing a lot of weight around.

How would it effect our National Security going forward?

There would be much less focus on national security. No anti terrorism push, probably no Iraq invasion (though I wouldn't count it out completely), no involvement in Afghanistan to name a few differences. As the 00s roll on, you'd get more air time for cyber security concerns. I'd suspect that would be an earlier and bigger push without terrorism to soak up much of the national attention.

Would an event like 9/11 happen later on?

Quite possibly, the conditions were right for it. It may or may not happen. I'd consider there to be at least a 50/50 chance of some incident happening, even if it's much smaller and less impactful than 9/11.

Also, would Bush get reelected again? I don't think he would, I think 9/11 and the way he responded is the big thing that kept him in office.

There's 3 years of uncharted territory for Bush to go through. It's really tough to say and it was a reasonably close election IOTL, so pick your poison there. I lean towards yes solely due to the advantages of incumbency. You could just as easily say '00's galvanization of the left over Bush v Gore continues to grow without 9/11 and ends up powering the Democrats to a victory.

Honestly, you may as well flip a coin to decide. About as accurate as trying to read the tea leaves on that one.
 
I think Cheney and Rumsfeld would still try to sell America on the Iraq war on the rationale of WMDs. Remember that even if 9/11 never happens, it's likely that the 2001 anthrax mailings still would happen.

Granted, it would be a MUCH more difficult case for the Bush Administration to make, and they likely wouldn't have the same mandate they had IOTL.
 
With regards to foreign policy, I think a 9/11-less US would be a lot more focused on Asia.

There was the Second Battle of Yeonpyeong, as well as the incident where Chinese and US aircraft collided.

China's global ambitions likely develop as OTL, while I am lead to believe that a lack of long-term US involvement in a Middle Eastern conflict precludes Russia from intervening in the South Ossetia conflict. In turn, this leaves the Russians less emboldened to take aggressive actions with regard to their other neighbors. If NATO still expands into Eastern Europe, however, the Russians may be pushed into the Chinese camp nonetheless. Russia's energies are directed in much the same way as OTL, though perhaps with less success due to fewer opportunities to exploit US involvement elsewhere or unwillingness to act. Alternatively, if the Russians feel threatened by the expansion of Chinese clout and influence in Central Asia or the Far East, the Russians could turn their attention in that direction-- Russia would look to India and the post-Soviet 'stans for cooperation; perhaps even Iran if the latter gets involved in Afghanistan against the Taliban and the Russians feel worried about terrorism.

One point that has been brought up by posters in previous conversations is that without OIF, Qaddafi is never dissuaded from continuing his WMD program, so that becomes a problem for whoever is (re)elected in 2004 or 2008. The most likely response is the imposition of a no-fly-zone and a sanctions regime similar to that utilized against Saddam. If the West has sanctioned Libyan oil and Qaddafi's rule is looking tenuous because the coffers are drying up and the ideas of the *Arab Spring are floating around, Qaddafi may decide that his WMD program will have to go in order to re-open his country's economy to Western consumers.

As for Iraq, it probably collapses into civil war when Saddam dies, or alternatively collapses into civil war when the *Great Recession hits and people start protesting. Iraq and Syria might end up as one big warzone just like OTL.

Overall, we probably see the inevitable Pivot to Asia happen under the Bush/Dem '04 administrations rather than during Obama's time in office.

Terrorism is a much smaller concern, at least as far as attacks on the homeland are concerned, but the Middle East itself might be just as important. The Great Recession is still probably going to happen, and with that an *Arab Spring which will leave both Iraq and Syria in sectarian conflicts remarkably similar to OTL. One wonders what the US might do if it is not so war-weary.

Heightened competition with China means that economic and military aid to African states increases in order to combat the growth of Chinese influence on that continent.

The US likely deploys troops to conflicts in Africa as well as in Iraq-Syria in a manner similar to the humanitarian interventions of the Clinton administration-- US involvement likely occurs under a UN or NATO aegis and enjoys broad international support. Actual troop commitment on the part of the US is also reduced due to greater international support. We may find ourselves bombing the Assads' or the Husseins' forces similarly to the aerial campaigns we undertook against the Serbians in the 1990s.
 
Bush re-election without national security dominating the debate is on the economy does the economy recover from the .com bubble in time. Well you don't have a double dip at least because of 911 which cost the US economy trillions, but you don't have the added military spending so most likely the economy by 2004 is doing well enough for re-election.

International terrorism is not going away if 911 doesn't occur without vast changes to Afghanistan during the 80s and 90s. Without such changes Afghanistan continues to remain a terror base for global attacks of various sorts like the USS Cole bombing.

The US likely deploys troops to conflicts in Africa as well as in Iraq-Syria in a manner similar to the humanitarian interventions of the Clinton administration-- US involvement likely occurs under a UN or NATO aegis and enjoys broad international support. Actual troop commitment on the part of the US is also reduced due to greater international support. We may find ourselves bombing the Assads' or the Husseins' forces similarly to the aerial campaigns we undertook against the Serbians in the 1990s.

Only if we are living in a world were Russia doesn't have Putin in office elsewise like OTL he will block the UN doing jack all in Syria and Iraq. Gaddafi made the mistake of letting his relationship with Russia lapse for one with the West. Look at Assad today, Putin has shown they support and defend their allies virtually no matter what they do.
 
Last edited:
Seth MacFarlane demonstrates once again how poorly he understands the concept of alternate history
Brian stops 9/11, Bush doesn't get re-elected, recreates the Confederacy, and starts a nuclear war with the US
In all fairness, 99% of tye public doesn't understand the concept either.
 
No re-election.

Bush won election by the Grace of God and Sandra Day O'Connor's sick husband. In a non-9/11 world in which Bush's Neo-Cons talk themselves and the USA into the Iraq War (mushroom clouds in America)? No righteous "rally-round-the-flag" effect for the war in Afghanistan? Finding out that Saddam's Secret Tunnels of WMDs turn out to be irrigation ditches for cattle...remember that John Kerry lost because of 30,000 voters in SW Ohio. Flipping Ohio would be all he needed. And flipping Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico would have represented low hanging fruit ITTL.

You really can't effectively handwave the Iraq War. George W. Bush was determined to do his father one better by "finishing the job" against Saddam Hussein that as he saw it his father had failed to do. He was also well aware that he wasn't all that welcome in Kennebunkport (and particularly with his mother) unless he could present Saddam's head on a silver platter for the Bush Family Christmas. Mission Accomplished.

The blowback in a non-911 non-Afghanistan world of finding no WMDs and no WMD program will result in President Kerry.
I think Cheney and Rumsfeld would still try to sell America on the Iraq war on the rationale of WMDs. Remember that even if 9/11 never happens, it's likely that the 2001 anthrax mailings still would happen.

Granted, it would be a MUCH more difficult case for the Bush Administration to make, and they likely wouldn't have the same mandate they had IOTL.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
It's very hard to say. Without the 9/11 attacks, Bush would not have the excuse he needed to invade Iraq. No matter how much he might want to, Congress and the people would never support it and he would not have been able to do it. Since getting bogged down in Iraq and not getting Osama bin Laden were the primary reasons Bush came close to defeat in 2004, one could assume that Bush would get reelected more easily than IOTL.

On the other hand, no 9/11 attacks completely and radically transforms the social and political fabric of America in the early years of the decade. We might suppose that social conservatives retain a stronger hold on the Republican Party as they would not be eclipsed by national security Republicans, so that issues like abortion and stem cell research would be more to the forefront than they were IOTL. Before 9/11, if you recall, stem cell research had been the most controversial issue dealt with by Bush.
 
It also needs to be considered who he's running against without 9/11 happening.

Kerry romped in the primaries. The only question is the chance of the butterfly effect taking away Howard Dean's screaming at that rally. He wasn't really screaming. It was a combination of a too powerful microphone and building acoustics. It made him sound like he was yelling at the top of his lungs in somebody's living room. Good luck trying to find a shot of that speech that IS NOT a close up of his podium.
 

Bulldoggus

Banned
Well, Kerry would likely be better off in '04, seeing as he won't be attacked for flip-flopping on Iraq. Bush'd likely lose a few more seats in the '02 midterms and squeak by in '04 with the gay marriage wedge issue.
 
Top