WI: Second 9/11?

Gan

Banned
What if Al Qaeda had managed another attack on US soil on the same scale as the one on 9/11? Would it have the same cultural impact as 9/11 and how would it affect the United States after?

Scenario 1: July of 2004.

How would this have affected the 2004 elections? Would Bush still win due to sympathy votes, or would he lose because people feel his actions were not enough to keep the American People safe?

Scenario 2: Between February and May of 2009.

With this happening so early during Obama's first term, how would this change the following years? How would he handle such a disaster, and would he still win in 2012? Would 2016 be any different because of this?
 
I think an attack occuring in your first time-frame benefits the "tough talkers", which at the time meant the Republicans. Swing voters are more likely to say "With America under constant attack, good thing we have a tough guy in the White House, not some panty-waist peacenik Democrat", rather than connect the dots and wonder why their hard-nosed warrior-president failed to prevent a second attack.
 
The fact is in 2001 and 2002 the public and political class fully expected more major attacks, they tried but we stopped them. We became a victim of our own success in the War on Terror where the public stopped seeing the need for the war around 2006 and bought the idea that Obama gave that its not a big issue, it's a minor drones can handle and they bought it up to the fall of Mosul.

An attack in 2004 keeps the US political class united on the issue of terrorism. An attack in 2009 makes Obama take the problem seriously as more then a tiny matter using drones against a few terror leaders. Either way both actions return a level of national unity to the US and sense of purpose. To heck with the whole 'who does it help more R or D'.
 
Last edited:
What if Al Qaeda had managed another attack on US soil on the same scale as the one on 9/11? Would it have the same cultural impact as 9/11 and how would it affect the United States after?
What kind of attack and where, though? Al Qaeda would be hard pressed to successfully execute another massive strike like that.
 

Gan

Banned
What kind of attack and where, though? Al Qaeda would be hard pressed to successfully execute another massive strike like that.

I really hadn't thought of that. I assume another hijacked plane being crashed into a building is impossible, and a nuclear attack would put this in a different ballpark than just a second 9/11. What's the plausibility of them using a private aircraft (perhaps loaded with explosives) being used?
 

missouribob

Banned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11

Looking down the list of open source attempted attacks since 9/11 I don't think you can get to 3,000 dead. I have a few ideas in my head but none of them get to that level and besides that probably don't need to be openly discussed. In any case a better question is what is the definition of a 9/11 level attack? Does it have to be as big as those attacks at minimum but under WMD? For example would 1,000 casualties count? 2,000?
 

Gan

Banned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11

Looking down the list of open source attempted attacks since 9/11 I don't think you can get to 3,000 dead. I have a few ideas in my head but none of them get to that level and besides that probably don't need to be openly discussed. In any case a better question is what is the definition of a 9/11 level attack? Does it have to be as big as those attacks at minimum but under WMD? For example would 1,000 casualties count? 2,000?

I would say anything that leads to 1,000-3,000 casualties, possibly combined with the destruction of an iconic structure would count.
 

missouribob

Banned
I would say anything that leads to 1,000-3,000 casualties, possibly combined with the destruction of an iconic structure would count.
I can get you to a thousand then. I'm not going to list the attack strategy online like this but here is the lead up anyway: Osama, before the 9/11 attacks decides that 4 planes are too many and reassigns the Hamburg Cell who OTL hijacked the United 93 flight to his second stage of attack plan. They would remain undercover in the United States as a sleeper cell to be activated on the dates you are referring too.

The hard part is keeping them undercover for 3 to 8 years given the growth of internal surveillance and intelligence in the United States post the attack. Still let's just say they carry out the attacks on those two dates and get to at least 1,000.

2004: Bush is going to win reelection. For a Democrat like Kerry you can't out hawk a hawk. Terrorism drives in-group identification (Rally around the Flag effect). [1] I don't know maybe you get another stronger amendment to the Patriot Act? Maybe Bush doesn't spend time on Medicare Part D but uses his political capital to make the Department of Homeland Security more effective? The United States would obviously still need reforms when it came to intelligence and surveillance. Katrina might be marginally worse oddly enough. FEMA was redirected from disaster preparedness in OTL as it was. [2] I can see even less funding for FY 2005 for those efforts...

2009: Obama is going to quietly drop his pledge to close Gitmo and will try to avoid further looking soft on terrorism. So expect none of the minor moderating actions he took in OTL against the military-industrial complex. Still go into Afghanistan. He might use the attack as over to stay in Iraq to some extent though since he would be able to go to Congressional leaders like, "Look can't look weak on terrorism." He still wins reelection in 2012 although it is a bit closer with more of the Republican base crying that Obama helped Osama. Those concerns aren't enough to shift the polls though considering Obama would have still killed Osama in this ATL. Once it is determined that it was a sleeper cell and not a group that entered the country he's likely to more or less act like OTL President. I can't see any particularly big butterflies beyond what I wrote. As bad as 1,000 dead is...it's not world ending. More Americans die every year from STD's by far. [3] Obama knows that and wouldn't overreact.

References: [1]http://www.psychologicalscience.org...ls-think-like-conservatives.html#.WF6-3FMrLcc
[2]http://www.rense.com/general67/femma.htm
[3]http://www.csdp.org/research/1238.pdf
 
He might use the attack as over to stay in Iraq to some extent though since he would be able to go to Congressional leaders like, "Look can't look weak on terrorism."

The Congressional GOP didn't force him out neither did his own people as his whole team other then his political advisors wanted to keep some troops behind. He ideologically back then didn't believe Iraq had anything to do with the war on terror which is why he pulled out.

He bought the special sauce that the enemy of Iraq only had regional ambitions that the democrats started promoting around 2006 as part of the whole we must cut and run policy.

The enemy was too beaten down to prove differently until 2014.
 
Last edited:
What kind of attack and where, though? Al Qaeda would be hard pressed to successfully execute another massive strike like that.
It's a good point. I'd say 9/11 was a strategic blunder for militant Islam, as it set the performance bar too high.

After 9/11, Islamists have resorted to attacking public gatherings or public transit, but with a smaller body count than a day's worth of American automobile accident fatalities (i.e. about 100 a day, per https://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safety-facts/road-crash-statistics)

Unless they do something big soon, militant Islam will be about as deadly as the flu or zebra crossings to most westerners.
 
What if Al Qaeda had managed another attack on US soil on the same scale as the one on 9/11? Would it have the same cultural impact as 9/11 and how would it affect the United States after?

Scenario 1: July of 2004.

How would this have affected the 2004 elections? Would Bush still win due to sympathy votes, or would he lose because people feel his actions were not enough to keep the American People safe?

Scenario 2: Between February and May of 2009.

With this happening so early during Obama's first term, how would this change the following years? How would he handle such a disaster, and would he still win in 2012? Would 2016 be any different because of this?

In the first scenario, this splits the terrorism-issue voters. In the weeks leading up to the 2004 election, people saw the three biggest issues as terrorism, the economy, and the Iraq war. Terrorism voters trended toward Bush, economy voters trended toward Kerry, and Iraq voters trended 50-50. It ended up that the Iraq voters broke for Kerry but Bush won on the backs of "values voters."

Those "values voters" would overwhelmingly go with terrorism as their top issue, as would many economy and Iraq voters; however, many terrorism voters would be scared that Bush oversaw two terrorist attacks on American soil in four years, especially the two worst. People would abandon ship for Kerry, but that's probably the worst thing that could happen for the Democrats, as the recession is around the corner and much worse, especially with Katrina smacking New Orleans.

John McCain wins in 2008 and Obama ends up staying in the Senate, as does HRC. However, anemic recovery aided by two terms for the GOP (although no more terrorism; even the Boston Marathon bombing may be averted) puts Bernie Sanders in the White House in 2016 virtually unopposed in the primaries, whereas people see just about everyone on the GOP side as more of the same.

In scenario 2, it will change Obama a LOT. People will rally around him - he's inspiring and gives a great speech, and he will play the toughness card while his focus will be less on State actors and more on groups such as ISIS and al-Qaeda. He will capture bin Laden in short order and redirect military action to controlled strikes against groups rather than massive invasions.

The big thing that will really throw that strategy - which will work wonders for a couple of years - is the Arab Spring. It will be a lot harder to accomplish his goals when he has as much chaos on his hands as he does. He'll still get re-elected, but his second term won't be chocked full of successes and he may even end up in some kind of scandal from his handling of the Middle East.

His respect level will increase temporarily, though, and that likely means some gains for his domestic agenda. Obamacare becomes more robust, and maybe there's some action toward gun control. He may also push for a second stimulus package, reinvigorating the economy and giving a boost to whoever runs on the blue ticket in 2016 - perhaps even Biden.
 
Top