WI: No 9/11?

Okay, since we've got a thread going on here about a worse 9/11, might as well make a sister thread?
What if, for whatever reason, al-Qaeda never manages to launch 9/11? Perhaps bin Laden dies in the late 90'. Whatever. How does the world progress from there, socially, politically, economically, everything?
If you want, let's say radicals still attack targets in India and Russia still has problems with the Chechens, but as a whole the world is unaffected. Do we get a more peaceful decade, perhaps a 90's repeat? (Yes, I know about the genocides in the Balkans and Rwanda, but I still mean as a whole.)
Discuss.
 
I think I read it in Time, but one line has been imprinted in my brain for years:
~"Most Americans can't remember pre- 9/11 life"

I think this is true. So we only have a limited scope on how we view such a PoD. I think we would have still went into Iraq, but not in Afghanistan (as an official war at least). Oil may be cheaper and America plane companies would be doing better financially-wise.
 
I think I read it in Time, but one line has been imprinted in my brain for years:
~"Most Americans can't remember pre- 9/11 life"

I think this is true. So we only have a limited scope on how we view such a PoD. I think we would have still went into Iraq, but not in Afghanistan (as an official war at least). Oil may be cheaper and America plane companies would be doing better financially-wise.
Why Iraq? How would we justify it? Sanctions, yes, but invasion?:confused:
 
Why Iraq? How would we justify it? Sanctions, yes, but invasion?:confused:

Humanitarianism. The Kurds are being massacred so thus we have to go save them, while freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator.

Bush originally promised to avoid foreign entanglements and nation-building, but that was probably just an empty promise. The kind politicians always make. Even without 9/11 he would have continued our Cold War-era foreign policy.
 
Bush would probably lost in 2004. There would be bombing raids across Iraq but neither Bush, nor John Kerry invades the nation, and Saddam would still be in power.

I think economically speeaking we'd be well off, in fact with a Kerry win I think we'd just start to fell the aura that started back in mid 2003.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Why Iraq? How would we justify it? Sanctions, yes, but invasion?:confused:

However Bush did. I believe he put on a mask and scared the bejeesus out of some kids, then told their parents that Saddam did it. But I could be "misremembering."




I used to have this crazy notion that with any troops that were left over we might end up with a peacekeeping force in Darfur. I remember reading some news articles and then hearing a story on NPR about how Bush wanted to put boots on the ground but Condi Rice said (exact quote, since it's so priceless) "You can't invade another Muslim country."
So who knows, instead of the dusty non-Iraq War everyone forgets being Afghanistan, it could be Darfur.
Instead of the Taliban, we'd be fighting the Janjaweed.

Somehow...it doesn't sound as fun. But I was serving in the CF at the time, and they were already in South Sudan in Operation Safari. They said it was quite...interesting.
 
Well. in my opinion, if 9/11 is for some reason not carried out, al-queda or another terrorist cell or would carry out another, possibly more devastating attack than OTL 9/11 some time this decade. However, if for some reason, a 9/11 style attack does'nt happen, there are a huge amount of butterflies we have to think of here.
 
Bush would probably lost in 2004. There would be bombing raids across Iraq but neither Bush, nor John Kerry invades the nation, and Saddam would still be in power.

I think economically speeaking we'd be well off, in fact with a Kerry win I think we'd just start to fell the aura that started back in mid 2003.

Zhane, I suspect that if you butterfly away 9/11, no matter the method, John Kerry would not have been the Democratic nominee in 2004. He gained momentum in significant part because he was a Vietnam vet, and was therefore thought to have a stronger national security case than Edwards/Dean/etc. No 9/11, and while national security would be important, it wouldn't be the defining characteristic of the campaign. Even assuming an invasion of Iraq, the Dems would be likely to look towards someone with stronger domestic credentials.

It'd be more likely for one of John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, or Hillary Clinton to take the nomination in that circumstance. If Gore or Clinton's decisions not to run change in the new TL, one of them will win. If roughly the same group of candidates runs, it'd likely be Edwards, or someone who had absolutely no interest or hype OTL. Too many of the other OTL candidates would be ASB; there's no way, for example, that Lieberman or Kucinich wins the nomination.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
It'd be more likely for one of John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, or Hillary Clinton to take the nomination in that circumstance. If Gore or Clinton's decisions not to run change in the new TL, one of them will win. If roughly the same group of candidates runs, it'd likely be Edwards, or someone who had absolutely no interest or hype OTL. Too many of the other OTL candidates would be ASB; there's no way, for example, that Lieberman or Kucinich wins the nomination.

I think you've made a very cogent argument, and I totally agree with you.

But let's just make one thing abundantly clear: there isn't a snowball's chance in a hell in the middle of a warm spell with the A/C broken than Dick Gephardt will ever. EVER win the nomination. :D

Where I come from, we've got a saying for Dick Gephardt (like we do for tornados, winter, truckers, and everything else that has come through our state regularly for the last 20 years). It goes: "He's a nice guy, I just wouldn't trust him with my checkbook."
 
What happens to Afghanistan without September 11?

Presumably it becomes a bit like Burma/Myanmar an international pariah state but generally ignored by the vast majority. Also the Taliban may have succeeded in finally bringing Northen Afghanistan under control. If I remember rightly the Northern Alliance was pretty screwed prior to them getting US backing.
 
US still gets involved in Iraq but it is not a direct invasion after the death of Sadaam Husein and the power struggle that follows. The entire nation is engulfed with tribe against tribe. Iran, Syria, and Turkey get involved to influence and protect borders from spill over.

US and British forces enter Iraq to secure the oild fileds and place a democratic government in Baghdad. Tensions rise between the US and Syria and the US and Iran.

Rest is pretty much same as OTL. To one degree after another, a democratic government is placed in Iraq. The main reason for the limted successs in Iraq is that eventually the people grow tired of the reprisals and want to move forward again with a stable government.
 
Off the top of my head:

No C&C Generals, no 24, BBC continues to make good police shows rather then endless D quality ones about Muslim terrorism, no Freedom Fries, no people freaking out on the "Two Towers" over its name, no bad Taiban/Plane jokes, no popularity for Michael Moore...

Generally Id believe it would be a nicer place (even though I like 24 and Generals).
 
I can see with no 9/11 that the decade would be relativly peaceful. There would be no invasion of Iraq at all, Sadam Hussein was a awful dictator but he was defeated in the 1st Gulf War and would not like to repeat that experience. He would just be another dictator with a very bad record on human rights like Syria or Turkmenistan. The US would be kind to him due to oil and only put slight pressure on him, he would not gas Isreal or the Kurds.
Afghanistan continues to be unstable and a islamic state. However it would not have the unstablility of now and would be off the radar like Uzbekistan.
Pakistan would be more stable as the taliban wouldn't of fled there. Also i could see central asia be more influanced by China and Russia sue to America not needing it for bases for Afghan war.
Europe would be nuch less anti-American, however i could see Europe becoming more centered on Europe with NATO becoming seen as useless.
In Britain, Blair would probably still be in power, as he hadn't been vilified for his role in Iraq, and the labour party would be a bit stronger in the few years after OTL Iraq but in 2009 prob at the smae strength.
 
Zhane, I suspect that if you butterfly away 9/11, no matter the method, John Kerry would not have been the Democratic nominee in 2004. He gained momentum in significant part because he was a Vietnam vet, and was therefore thought to have a stronger national security case than Edwards/Dean/etc. No 9/11, and while national security would be important, it wouldn't be the defining characteristic of the campaign. Even assuming an invasion of Iraq, the Dems would be likely to look towards someone with stronger domestic credentials.

It'd be more likely for one of John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, or Hillary Clinton to take the nomination in that circumstance. If Gore or Clinton's decisions not to run change in the new TL, one of them will win. If roughly the same group of candidates runs, it'd likely be Edwards, or someone who had absolutely no interest or hype OTL. Too many of the other OTL candidates would be ASB; there's no way, for example, that Lieberman or Kucinich wins the nomination.


Those are good points, and I'd bet money on Edwards getting the nod to run
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Whether it was originally Bush's belief that we should invade or not, I think without a 9/11, it doesn't happen.

But Bush probably loses in 2004

He'd still get to bomb the living daylights out of it on a regular basis, though. Clinton set a pretty strong precedent for that.
 
Probably no Afgan war no Iraq invasion and no second term for Bush on the whole the world would be a happier place or am I missing some possible unthought of horrors?
 
Top