In this, basically how do we still have the invasions and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without 9/11?
What affects would this have?
What affects would this have?
WI/AHC: No 9/11, but still US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq
- Thread starter Historyman 14
- Start date
I think both are possible, but very hard to pull off politically and internationally. Bill Clinton did supposedly contemplate invading Afghanistan towards the end of his second term, but didn't because he couldn't get the basing rights, congress wouldn't support it, and he didn't want to leave a war for the next President, especially if that next President wasn't Gore. I could see a President Gore invading Afghanistan in the Early 2000s without 9/11, but can't see GW Bush doing it as they didn't see Al Qaeda as a threat at all until 9/11 happened.
As for Iraq, that one is more possible. All of Bush's cabinet, minus Powel, and Bush himself were aching to invade. So long as the Democrats don't sweep in the 2002 midterms, I think a later invasion of Iraq could happen, but again, it'd be very hard to pull off, even if Bush had the right majorities in congress, as the international community still wouldn't go for it.
As for Iraq, that one is more possible. All of Bush's cabinet, minus Powel, and Bush himself were aching to invade. So long as the Democrats don't sweep in the 2002 midterms, I think a later invasion of Iraq could happen, but again, it'd be very hard to pull off, even if Bush had the right majorities in congress, as the international community still wouldn't go for it.
Clinton had plans drawn up to invade Afghanistan in 2000 after the bombing of the US Cole. Let's say the Cole happens six months earlier. US invades in summer/fall of 2000, butterflying 9/11. Bush wins the election and later invades Iraq, which would have happened regardless of 9/11, imo.
edit: ninja'd by dw93. Nice response.
edit: ninja'd by dw93. Nice response.
Define invade? We were bombing Iraq and Afghanistan in the 90s under Clinton.
All you need to invade is a few SF troops on the ground calling in airstrikes and doing missions as well.
That was proposed OTL more then once in the Summer of 2002 on one of Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam's bases in Northern Iraq which was a massive terror complex planning attacks on Europe and on Americans in the Middle East.
If you are talking about a full scale invasion and occupation of both countries though not going to happen without a 911 equivalent and Saddam acting as stupidly as OTL.
All you need to invade is a few SF troops on the ground calling in airstrikes and doing missions as well.
That was proposed OTL more then once in the Summer of 2002 on one of Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam's bases in Northern Iraq which was a massive terror complex planning attacks on Europe and on Americans in the Middle East.
If you are talking about a full scale invasion and occupation of both countries though not going to happen without a 911 equivalent and Saddam acting as stupidly as OTL.
Agreed. The failed attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993, the African embassy bombings and the bombing of the Cole collectively gave the Americans sufficient causus belli for Bill Clinton to seriously consider ordering the invasion of Afghanistan. However, they had no such justification for invading Iraq and won't have sufficient carte blanche to do basically whatever they want without 9/11. That may not stop them from trying some other means of removing Saddam, but in TTL they won't be kicking down the front door.