yes, there US Troops in Europe but there number are in descent since Cold War is over.
so there are Neo Nazi and Far right networks and Organizations but there not so efficient organized als Islamic Terrorist like al-Qaeda & Co (in fact the Neo-nazi are rather Amateurish bunch of Idiots )
But since National Socialist origin from Austria and Germany, those nation can get in Focus of US politic after Right Wing 9/11
like you say metalinvader665, it need highly organized Terrorist network to pull a Right Wing 9/11, in that case the CIA would goes after Key figures of this Network who are in foreign countries, and arrest or killing then ( just like with some al-Qaeda members.)
That there happen "assessment error" is not new for CIA, ok Jean Marie Le Pen is over kill, but for Bert Eriksson certain.
The United States still has thousands of soldiers deployed to Europe to this day. That's more than enough for anything the US needs to do. There's no way you can construe this as a military threat to the United States unlike with 9/11. It's a case of international law enforcement and the US intelligence community exchanging information, and the suspects being arrested.
What if Bert Eriksson has nothing to do with this? The CIA wouldn't just be killing/kidnapping prominent figures in the European far-right at random, they'd be targetting people with an actual role. And some global network of far-right figures attacking the US sounds like an action movie (James Bond?) or a Tom Clancy-type airport novel.
Germany and Austria? Okay, sure Kurt Waldheim was President of Austria once, but that's a pretty tenuous link to Nazism since Waldheim was not exactly a neo-Nazi. And then why would neo-Nazis in Germany and Austria be so interested in the United States? Aren't they kind of angry at their own countries for censoring them, arresting them, and letting in immigrants? Why would they do help do something that would mean the United States will be assisting their home countries in arresting them? Why would they want to draw a massive international spotlight to their activities? Why not just commit terrorism in their own country to try and prove a point?
Analog to Right Wing 9/11: USA menaces it's NATO member and other European countries with high Neo-Nazis activity.
Either local Government take care of there problem with Right wings or US troops / Drones deal with them.
And that's the problem here--a right-wing analogue of 9/11 will be fundamentally different than the actual 9/11 to the point I don't know if you could even call it an analogue of 9/11. You don't have countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, one of which the US has actively intervened in and the other which is run by a literal terrorist group which shelters other terrorists. Having any Western European country in the 90s run by neo-Nazis is ASB. Even in Eastern Europe, I highly doubt a neo-Nazi/fascist/whatever party could take over a country. Even in Russia where you had the LDPR, it's highly unlikely they could win since the results would be rigged against them like it was for Zyuganov and the Communist Party. And the United States can't do much to an LDPR-ruled Russia, since Russia has a lot of nukes and messing around there means World War III. Likewise, Zhirinovsky knows this and wouldn't go for something as overt as funding terrorists to attack the United States in such a destructive way, since that's tantamount to a declaration of war meaning Russia will go up in radioactive smoke. Other Eastern European countries, with their poor economies in the 90s, are much more vulnerable to "regime change" efforts and US-backed revolutions.
Local governments would obviously take care of the problem, since I'm pretty sure it's illegal to commit terrorism in a foreign country in the majority of the world. There's literally no need for US soldiers or drone bombings since the local police will just do their job.
Thanks clarified that point. so Guantanamo will take foreign right wings and nazis
Guantanamo Bay has run into problems when the detainees are citizens of European nations like the UK. No way in hell is Germany, Belgium, whoever letting their citizens be held in a place like that. The concept of "unlawful combatant" and "enemy combatant" would be impossible to apply here. Is it because we're dealing with white Europeans and not brown Middle Easterners? Maybe that would play a part. But it's still a bunch of people being arrested by the police in a first world country where most people can safely believe the prison system is capable of dealing with them (even if they don't get the death sentence like many Americans would want, but Guantanamo isn't exactly hanging people left and right either). Yes, I know the European prison system doesn't give life sentences as much as the US prison system does, but that's not going to suddenly make the United States demand extradition of everyone involved. Although in theory, the United States could and possibly would extradite the ringleaders using the same justification they've done for extraditing El Chapo. But then you have issues which have faced Guantanamo, since most prisons don't want a bunch of foreign terrorists and there's only limited space in maximum security prisons/supermax prisons anyway, since the US prison system is notoriously overcrowded.
I worked in downtown D.C. for quite a few years at the World Bank. The White house is well within walking distance only a few blocks away. So I'm pretty familiar with downtown D.C.
Also I've flown out of Washington's Ronald Reagan National airport more than once. Takeoff and landing is usually over the Potomac river and many of the monuments and landmarks are clearly visible and recognisable. l've been able to recognize many of the buildings and monuments on the flights I had window seat.
Take the time to go on Google Earth and look at satellite imagery the landmarks are quite recognisable. Find Ronald Reagan National airport it's main runway points directly at the White House and the Washington monument. The current version of imagery you can see that the Washington monument's shadow points directly at the White House. If you scroll to the right from the Washington monument you'll find the National mall which leads you directly to Capitol hill and the Capitol itself.
I've only flown out of DC twice (I think both times Dulles, but it might've been Ronald Reagan, I can't remember, George W. Bush was president then), and I couldn't make out the main landmarks aside from the Pentagon. It might be you'd need a lot more flights out of there. The landmarks in question are pretty small too compared to some of the largest skyscrapers and office buildings in the world.
Google Earth is not a good judge of what things
actually look like from the air.
Why was it implausible for lone wolfs to pull off an attack? I do believe that 767s and 757s are capable of being flown with one pilot.
Sam Byck
tried to do it back in 1974. Of course he failed horribly. A way a lone wold terrorist MIGHT be able to pull it off could just be hoaxing the plane crew and passengers he has a bomb.
Even in the late 2000s there were
some successful hijackings.
While such an attack would not be on the scale of 9/11, several hundreds dead is certainly a guarantee if this person has the plane in control.
They need overpower the flight crew and keep them out of the cockpit. This is why the 9/11 attacks included "muscle hijackers" who weren't there to fly the plane. I'd imagine that using a bomb to hijack a plane might go poorly when they realise you're there to fly the plane into a building and not just after money/going to Cuba/other typical hijackings. I think a lot of flight crew might as well just decide to attack you (and risk your "bomb" going off) instead of endangering people on the ground.