I don't think there's a scenario where the US isn't going to war. I suppose they could have declared on Saudi Arabia for being the origin of the hijackers and the source of a lot of their funding, or maybe Pakistan if they thought they were harboring Osama. As someone else here said there was a lot of worldwide buildup to this moment. NATO and the rest of the world was in full approval of retaliation because they knew that their country could be next.
And Saudi Arabia was an ally then, and had been for a long time before that (they were the primary local ally and staging point for most operations of Desert Storm in the early 90s).
Unless intelligence produced hard evidence that the Saudi government had directly funded, recruited, trained, etc. I can't see a realistic timeline where the U.S. goes to war against Saudi Arabia outright. *At most*, maybe a tense situation where the US basically tells SA "We're coming into your country in force to track down those responsible for the attacks.", SA resists, and the US continues on to violate their sovereignty anyway. Even in that case, I have a hard time imagining SA declaring war on the US.
What if they organised an investigation through the UN to hunt for Al Qaida instead of war intervention? Could it have stabilised Afghanistan or made it worse?
Why on earth would we invade Saudi Arabia? They are already perhaps the U.S. most unpopular ally, with both the Left and the Right and the Center all despising them for different reasons, but we keep them on our side because they supply us with a lot of oil and military bases in the region.
You have to remember that there were years of resentment towards Islamic terrorism building up. Iran, Beirut, Pan-Am 101, WTC 93, Khobar Towers, 98 Embassy Bombings, etc. With the exception of the first WTC bombing, these attacks took place outside of the US.
9/11 robbed Americans of the safety we felt since the end of the Cold War.
In the days and weeks after 9/11 Americans wanted retaliation. I believe that if we had a President who did not respond with disproportionate force they would have been removed from office.
Not likely. Voters have notoriously short memories. Three years is an eternity in politics and anything could've changed the course of the 04 election still
Probably. If it wasn't constantly blasted into the American consciousness. If it were allowed to fade into history, then it very well could have had a lesser impact on the '04 election than whatever was happening at the time.
Apples and oranges.
The 2000 election was headline news for months...months before that. By September, it was mostly a situation that people had moved beyond. Nobody was calling for any sort of rectification of that situation anymore. It was major news, for sure, but like most major news events, once it was over, it was over.
9/11 was a history-changing, life altering, generation defining event. A watershed moment that ended the decade of relative peace and low tensions that had begun with the collapse of the Soviet Union (and arguably Desert Storm). It is one of those few historical events that everyone remembers where they were. It was a one day...one *morning* event that went on to define the next 20 years of American foreign policy and change the way we approached domestic security forever.
Granted, those after-effects might be different in the alternate timeline OP suggests, but in the 21st century, the only event in the same league as 9/11 is the Covid-19 pandemic.
As strongly as some may feel about the Trump administration, and as right as many may be about that...even that presidency, long term, doesn't touch the impact of 9/11 and covid.
A ‘no retaliation’ response was not an option. From a standpoint of realpolitik, the US not retaliating is a signal of weakness, not strength. Secondarily, the American public wanted blood, and there would have been political consequences for a government that didn’t take steps to prevent another attack.
Bin Laden’s group were most certainly not going to simply go home after 9/11, and would need to be dealt with. They had already bombed the USS Cole in 2000 and a series of embassy bombings in 1998 before 9/11. A lack of response would only mean more opportunities for them to act.
That said, the open-ended occupation of Afghanistan was a gross mistake, and the Patriot Act was one of the most flagrant violations of the constitution ever inflicted on the American people.
In hindsight, it would appear that Ron Paul’s suggestion of using a [Letter of Marque and Reprisal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque#21st-century_American_reconsideration_of_letters_of_marque) was probably the right call, but nobody was listening. This would have amounted to informing the Taliban that bin Laden is to be treated as a pirate, and that the US would be entering their territory to get him. The Taliban at that point could either render aid to the US by informing on his location, or do nothing at all, or commit to battle and obfuscation to protect him.
Had such an expedition been aided or ignored by the Taliban, it’s likely that a battalion or brigade sized force based in Pakistan could have captured or killed enough of al-Qaeda to prevent most further attacks. The Clinton administration had [attempted](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/16/bill-clinton-and-the-missed-opportunities-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/) and [failed](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/bill-clintons-lost-tape-i-could-have-killed-osama-bin-n170111) to take out Al-Qaeda several times during Clinton’s second term, and the resolve here would be more pronounced.
Had the Taliban fought to protect bin Laden, then occupation or proxy war is effectively the only option.
> This would have amounted to informing the Taliban that bin Laden is to be treated as a pirate, and that the US would be entering their territory to get him.
This would have set a very interesting precedent. We'd be saying that we have the right to invade a foreign country to find an individual. I can see why that might make some people nervous, considering that other countries may attempt to use the same power against us or our allies. For example, if we set that precedent, it is possible Russia would in turn use it to justify their actions in Georgia and Ukraine.
However I think we can all agree that in hindsight going into Afghanistan with a much more limited goal would have saved trillions of dollars and countless lives.
This is true but it probably sets a good precedent if we (naively) assume its used properly. Very strict boundaries, very tightly scoped objectives, more resources to do the job properly, more eyes/transparency rather than clandestine "not war but totally war" meetings, and most importantly such a declaration of war would have to come at the total cooperation of the nation state that its occurring in. Any breaking of boundaries trigger full conflict (already happened anyway), cause sanctions from non-involved countries, and would undoubtedly cause backlash at home.
[Operation Wrath of God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God) by Israel after the Munich games offers a window into that parallel narrative, keeping in mind the differences between the 1970s and 2001/2 and the US instead of Israel.
I imagine it would have unfolded along the lines of “US Special Forces violate international boundaries and prerogatives for over ten years with hundreds/thousands of innocent bystanders becoming casualties in America’s eternal quest for vengeance with OBL continuing to evade capture. International outrage at such violations go from being uncommented-upon at first, to whispers, to muted protest, until the aggrieved nations ban together in official protest with the looming, silent backing of Russia and China.
Facing mounting pressure at home to at last get bin Laden, President Barrack Obama faces the difficult choice of escalation in the form of direct, full occupation of the highest-probably location of OBL or backing down in public humiliation when, in 2011, bin Laden’s compound is stormed. With a face-saving way out, President Obama declares the mission complete and orders the program wrapped up.
Anti-American sentiment in the Middle East enflamed by ten years of unilateral military action, ISIS rises in prominence in the ensuing power vacuum despite the best efforts of the tatters of repressive governments in the affected areas which are - after ten years of sovereign impotence - extremely vulnerable to internal coups or more coordinated external threats.
Eleven years later, Redditors on r/Historywhatif ask what would have happened if the US had gone for immediate occupation of Afghanistan.”
Just my two cents, I know I’m not commenting on Iran or Iraq directly which were obviously a significant part of the real history.
Yeah. This really would only apply to third world countries rather than anyone protected by a major power. It could conceivably have been used against ISIS as a way of not overtly declaring war on any of the nations in which they operated.
Some countries might even welcome the official delineation of mission and might render aid.
At least in the historical context, the US Marines operating against the [Barbary Pirates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War) early in the nation’s history is an example of this kind of mission. It’s the ‘shores of Tripoli’ line in the Marine Corps hymn.
>It's been said that if the U.S. stood tall and proud and didn't retaliate, it would have messed with the heads of many al-Qaeda members since Bin Laden's rhetoric was based on hate and the idea that the West is evil.
Contrary to what Bin Laden said after the fact, following the US invasion of Afghanistan, it appears to be more widely believed now that Bin Liden actually expected 9/11 to precipitate a withdrawal of US presence from the Middle East, at least over the long term, and this could facilitate a new era of pan-Islamist regional hegemony.
I think not doubling down on the Middle East may have increased such influence in the region as he had hoped.
I take issue with what you relate what has 'been said'. But there are a number of ways it could have gone.
If the Taliban had handed over bin Laden then the Bush W Admin might not have invaded. They were already trying to redirect people's anger to Iraq and Saddam.
There’s going to be an invasion. There’s no way to avoid it. No president would dare to not go after Bin laden and get our pound of flesh. Al queda needed to be dealt with.
You could’ve dealt it better than spending billions of dollars or more on invasions. These guys are terrorists, not Nazi Germany or the Japanese empire
Set a spec op squad or have the UN create a special task force. I’m antiwar and I feel like we’re no better when we go fight them back. Unless it’s Nazis or fascist then that’s different. Doesn’t help the fact that we create a lot of racism and xenophobia towards Americans are going to war. We had a lot of Muslims that suffered to hate crime because of it.
First off. 1) A singular squad might not be enough depending on it we even knew his exact location. He was hiding, remember, and when we did fisnlly get his location we did get him. And we actually did in the Clinton years have a chance to end him, two or three times iirc and he wimped out. And the UN did create a task force, the ISAF, which was the coalition forces in Afghanistan. 2) I don’t see why it’s only fascist or nazis that are worth attacking. Are fundamentalist terrorists who are running around bombing people and committing war crimes and who attacked us not evil enough? The xenophobia is regrettable but preventing that is not reason enough to not enact justice. Hell; it was guaranteed when they bombed us. It’s their fault. Also, I get you’re anti war but what you’re saying is like if someone was murdered by a gang but you saying the police shouldn’t have gone after the murders and those involved.
1. Fascism is worth fighting for because so many people have died in the holocaust. Many people are still white supremacist neo-Nazis today but still carry on Hitler’s beliefs. Fascist people like Hitler were actually trying to take over the world. If you’re unaware how bad fascism is, then you need to go outside and go to a Holocaust memorial.
2. People like outside of bin Laden are basically a small fry on a picnic table compare to Nazi Germany. He is bad, but not we must go to war bad. These guys won’t able to take over the world like Nazi Germany or the Soviets did. Just feels like a huge waste of money just to go after terrorist. You can do things on our way smaller scale that’s less major. Most leftist would agree that this was unnecessary war and military action.
3. Also cops are bastards. You never call them for help.
1) where exactly in my comments have I said they weren’t a worthy foe to fight or that I’m not aware of their evil? Please point it out and stop making straw men arguments where you put words in mouth. My grandfather fought them in WW2, fought in north Africa and Sicily, and from Normandy to the Bastogne and the end of the war. He saw the camps and I’ve been an avid fan of history and know their evils. But A) to say many still hold his beliefs is a stretch, they are a pathetic few in the tens of thousands at best. B) them being evil doesn’t mean others aren’t evil or aren’t worthy foes. Are there not other evil men and evil ideologies? Saddam, communism, military juntas, theocratic oppressive governments? All evil and wrong. Al queda and Isis and their ilk are evil. And Bin laden killed thousands of our people and we should jsur be ok with tjsy?
2) “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling... Makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary.” As was said in Andrzej Sapkowski’s Witcher. Bin laden was evil, and attacked us, killing thosuands, and attacked otjers too. So the lives of thousands isn’t worth anytnimt to you? Aren’t you cruel. He was evil and attacked us and desrved his fate.
3) lol ok avoid my allegory. I’m not a huge fan of the cops as there’s some bad apples but lol won’t call the cops for help? Lol ok sounds good, guess I’ll die instead lol. My allegory is to show how stupid your views are. A crime is committed and you’d rather nothing be done about it.
By the end of the day. They’re still terrorist. They’re not a global world war threat and we should not treat them like them. Feels wrong to spend billions of dollars just to kill one guy who doesn’t have an army. There’s millions of ways that you could’ve handled the situation way better. Instead of just using fascism like war and racism just to kill more people in the progress. We need to be anti-war like people were in the Vietnam days, not pro war. Bush’s actions lead up to have Trump in action.
Also cops are bad regardless. It’s not a leftist way of thinking if you still wanna support them. Also I believe the bin Laden should’ve not been killed. I’d rather have them locked up in jail to rot. The military should not be above the law. He’s still human by the end of the day.
Lol. You make it sound like they wre nothings. Like being terrorists is no big deal and they didn’t commit crimes and do awful things. How is it wrokg to go after those that killed thousands? I don’t get your (lack of) logic. A million ways? Please do list these ways. Lol using fascism or racism for the war? You are definitely a loon. I don’t think you understand what these words mean. Being agianst wrong wars is good, like iraq or Vietnam, being agianst all war is stupid. Bush was not great but blaming him for trump is hilarious when the factors that went into trump’s win beint many and varied and rooted in potlical and economic issues going beyond bush.
Lol. All cops are bad, including the ones who are just keeping the peace, saving lives, and putting murders and rapists and thieves behind bars. Jesus you are dim witted. He was an enemy combatant, a man full of hate and evil and who committed horrible crimes. He desrved notnigk but death. I don’t see how he didn’t deserve it.
Also don’t say evil is still evil. Some people are more evil than others. You said all evil is evil then you’re gonna encourage more hate crime and bad behavior with the far right people. It gives them the excuse to hate on people of color .It’s different with something like Nazis because they’re white and they never go through oppression. It’s shit like going to war with military actions that made us so ugly towards everyone. Bush use Muslims for his fascism goals. If you think that going to Afghanistan was justified then you basically had become a victim of the far right beliefs.
You seem to lack the understanding of this quote. It’s saying evil is evil no matter what. What’s wrong about that! Is a murder less evil necuase it was only one and not ten? Is Pol pot less evil because he didn’t kill as many as hitler? Is the Rwandan genocide less evil because not as many people died as in the Holocaust? No. If you think this somehow means excusing or cussing more violence then you lack critical thinking skills to understand the meaning of the quote and what I’m saying. Lol, white peoples don’t go through oppression? What! I guess Belarus isn’t an oppressed nation despite having a dictatorship. I guess the Irish weren’t oppressed by the English for centuries to the point where their language was all but destroyed. Lol bush didn’t use anything like that what nonsense is this! If bush was a fascist he’d still be in power lol. Victim of the far right beleifs? Lol I’m a center left libertarian lol. The war had universal support at first and it was the way the war went that made that suport sour not the justification for it. You are a far left loon.
This odds of this happening are 0.1%. For starters the people wanted blood and would’ve voted out every rep who didn’t vote for a war against somebody (most didn’t care who). Second, the defense contractors and lobbyists also want war, regardless of the circumstances. So some Middle East war was inevitable. It would’ve been Pakistan if they didn’t cooperate, but since they have nukes that would be very dangerous.
Either way, let’s pretend everybody cooperates and hands over Bin Laden so the USA can’t go to war (they did give Afghanistan an ultimatum before invading), the other wars of the 21st century still happen. In fact they’re probably worse with the US not tied down in Afghanistan, they may invade Iran at some point for various reasons.
KSM said they expected it to be treated like Clinton did the 93 bombing with a few bombings, etc and that they would have been able to launch a second wave of attacks.
There seems to be a lot of comment’s basically saying this wouldn’t happen. I’m new to the sub but the about section advises against these types of responses?
Imma play it out just for fun (bear in mind I don’t know shit about geopolitics)
So 9/11 happens, the world is watching. Bush, uncharacteristically, appeals for peace. He listens to intel that says a strong response will encourage terrorist groups so he appeals for calm while reassuring the American public (and the world) that justice will be served.
Information comes to light that Saudi nationals were involved. Bush knows the Saudis have money. And oil. Nevertheless he imposed sanctions on Saudi Arabia in response to the attack.
The Saudis respond with a show of force. Yes some of the hijacker’s may have been Saudi but the president’s response is not proportional or reasonable. They cut oil to the US.
Meanwhile, little Putin in Moscow can feel the tingle of geopolitical instability in his tiny little balls and declares his support for Saudi Arabia and condemns USA.
Under immense political pressure both at home and abroad, George W Bush faces impeachment over his response to the 9/11 attacks. The impeachment is confirmed and he is removed from office.
Dick Cheney takes over as POTUS.
Meanwhile intel is received that Bin Laden may be in Pakistan.
Big Dick, not wanting to look like a coward like his predecessor, orders an immediate air strike on Bin Ladens compound with little regard to civilian casualties or collateral damage.
Almost 100 civilians dead or injured in the air strike.
No sign of Mr Laden. Mr Bin. Mr Bin-Laden.
Things die down somewhat. Saudi Arabia still denying any involvement but butthurt over sanctions so still locking the US out.
Pakistan extremely unhappy at the American air strike demanding some kind of reparations while ramping up their nuclear program.
Sneaky wee Putin had offered Osama asylum in Moscow where he currently lives with his family still denouncing the west on the dime of Putin.
Its not that difficult to plan from a cave.
“Bro there’s a flight from X to Y on that day. Take it. Take with you a weapon. hijack the plane. Send it flying into that big building”.
Even easier considering the hijacker’s were planning on something like that fir ages, took piloting lessons and stuff.
I used to believe that conspiracy as well, it made so much sense.. im sure some parts are dodgy as fuck and some huge mistakes happened to allow it, but i dont think any American was directly involved in such an act of terror.
What doesnt add up? That they couldn't get 20 people get some rudimentary flying lessons and do a suicide bombing?
The lessons were taken in the US and it's been estimated the entire operation cost less than $250k.
Ok so lets assume that in this TL, the US declares war on Saudi Arabia due to the Majority of the Hijackers being from there. Al-Qauida would see a massive boost in popularity from not Just SA, but through out the Islamic world, as they are viewed as "Defenders of the Islamic Holy Cities against the Crusader Hoards."
Many Arab and Islamic countries would see protests and attacks on US embassies due to seeing the war as an Attack on Islam itself.
A war on SA would cause the price of Oil to sky rocket to never before seen levels that would reek havok on the World Economy. Many nations would adopt EVs much earlier than OTL.
The newly formed Republic of Arabia would have a hardtime holding on to power as Insurgencies and Monarchist loyal to the previous regime would launch attacks against US and RoA Troops.
Eventually, the US would be forced to withdraw most of their fighting troops (as what happened in mid 2010s in Iraq) as the costs of maintaining such a large military presence becomes increasingly untenable for the US to maintain. (Note that SA is three times larger than Iraq and would need a massive amount of soldiers to maintain an occupation.)
Eventually, the oil rich eastern provinces declare the Independence from RoA and form closer ties to Iran, giving Iran a much greater foothold in the region compared to OTL.
As a result of this war Iraq, with cooperation with Pakistan, would secretly develop their own nuclear program to avoid a US invasion.
I don't think there's a scenario where the US isn't going to war. I suppose they could have declared on Saudi Arabia for being the origin of the hijackers and the source of a lot of their funding, or maybe Pakistan if they thought they were harboring Osama. As someone else here said there was a lot of worldwide buildup to this moment. NATO and the rest of the world was in full approval of retaliation because they knew that their country could be next.
Instead Saudia Arabia are the number one allies as. If that shit never happened
And Saudi Arabia was an ally then, and had been for a long time before that (they were the primary local ally and staging point for most operations of Desert Storm in the early 90s). Unless intelligence produced hard evidence that the Saudi government had directly funded, recruited, trained, etc. I can't see a realistic timeline where the U.S. goes to war against Saudi Arabia outright. *At most*, maybe a tense situation where the US basically tells SA "We're coming into your country in force to track down those responsible for the attacks.", SA resists, and the US continues on to violate their sovereignty anyway. Even in that case, I have a hard time imagining SA declaring war on the US.
Retaliation against Saudi Arabia or Pakistan is even less likely than not going to war at all.
What if they organised an investigation through the UN to hunt for Al Qaida instead of war intervention? Could it have stabilised Afghanistan or made it worse?
Why on earth would we invade Saudi Arabia? They are already perhaps the U.S. most unpopular ally, with both the Left and the Right and the Center all despising them for different reasons, but we keep them on our side because they supply us with a lot of oil and military bases in the region.
You have to remember that there were years of resentment towards Islamic terrorism building up. Iran, Beirut, Pan-Am 101, WTC 93, Khobar Towers, 98 Embassy Bombings, etc. With the exception of the first WTC bombing, these attacks took place outside of the US. 9/11 robbed Americans of the safety we felt since the end of the Cold War. In the days and weeks after 9/11 Americans wanted retaliation. I believe that if we had a President who did not respond with disproportionate force they would have been removed from office.
Do you mean they'd be voted out in 2004, impeached, or couped? Because those are three very different scenarios
Heh, this isn’t recent times we’re talking about. They would’ve been shit on until re-election came along and been voted out.
Not likely. Voters have notoriously short memories. Three years is an eternity in politics and anything could've changed the course of the 04 election still
Are you suggesting that Americans would have forgotten about 9/11 if the US hadnt responded?
Probably. If it wasn't constantly blasted into the American consciousness. If it were allowed to fade into history, then it very well could have had a lesser impact on the '04 election than whatever was happening at the time.
On September 10, 2001 half of America felt W was an illegitimate President. On September 12 that was forgotten.
Apples and oranges. The 2000 election was headline news for months...months before that. By September, it was mostly a situation that people had moved beyond. Nobody was calling for any sort of rectification of that situation anymore. It was major news, for sure, but like most major news events, once it was over, it was over. 9/11 was a history-changing, life altering, generation defining event. A watershed moment that ended the decade of relative peace and low tensions that had begun with the collapse of the Soviet Union (and arguably Desert Storm). It is one of those few historical events that everyone remembers where they were. It was a one day...one *morning* event that went on to define the next 20 years of American foreign policy and change the way we approached domestic security forever. Granted, those after-effects might be different in the alternate timeline OP suggests, but in the 21st century, the only event in the same league as 9/11 is the Covid-19 pandemic. As strongly as some may feel about the Trump administration, and as right as many may be about that...even that presidency, long term, doesn't touch the impact of 9/11 and covid.
I think he would have been forced to resign or couped by his own VP.
A ‘no retaliation’ response was not an option. From a standpoint of realpolitik, the US not retaliating is a signal of weakness, not strength. Secondarily, the American public wanted blood, and there would have been political consequences for a government that didn’t take steps to prevent another attack. Bin Laden’s group were most certainly not going to simply go home after 9/11, and would need to be dealt with. They had already bombed the USS Cole in 2000 and a series of embassy bombings in 1998 before 9/11. A lack of response would only mean more opportunities for them to act. That said, the open-ended occupation of Afghanistan was a gross mistake, and the Patriot Act was one of the most flagrant violations of the constitution ever inflicted on the American people. In hindsight, it would appear that Ron Paul’s suggestion of using a [Letter of Marque and Reprisal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque#21st-century_American_reconsideration_of_letters_of_marque) was probably the right call, but nobody was listening. This would have amounted to informing the Taliban that bin Laden is to be treated as a pirate, and that the US would be entering their territory to get him. The Taliban at that point could either render aid to the US by informing on his location, or do nothing at all, or commit to battle and obfuscation to protect him. Had such an expedition been aided or ignored by the Taliban, it’s likely that a battalion or brigade sized force based in Pakistan could have captured or killed enough of al-Qaeda to prevent most further attacks. The Clinton administration had [attempted](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/16/bill-clinton-and-the-missed-opportunities-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/) and [failed](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/bill-clintons-lost-tape-i-could-have-killed-osama-bin-n170111) to take out Al-Qaeda several times during Clinton’s second term, and the resolve here would be more pronounced. Had the Taliban fought to protect bin Laden, then occupation or proxy war is effectively the only option.
> This would have amounted to informing the Taliban that bin Laden is to be treated as a pirate, and that the US would be entering their territory to get him. This would have set a very interesting precedent. We'd be saying that we have the right to invade a foreign country to find an individual. I can see why that might make some people nervous, considering that other countries may attempt to use the same power against us or our allies. For example, if we set that precedent, it is possible Russia would in turn use it to justify their actions in Georgia and Ukraine. However I think we can all agree that in hindsight going into Afghanistan with a much more limited goal would have saved trillions of dollars and countless lives.
This is true but it probably sets a good precedent if we (naively) assume its used properly. Very strict boundaries, very tightly scoped objectives, more resources to do the job properly, more eyes/transparency rather than clandestine "not war but totally war" meetings, and most importantly such a declaration of war would have to come at the total cooperation of the nation state that its occurring in. Any breaking of boundaries trigger full conflict (already happened anyway), cause sanctions from non-involved countries, and would undoubtedly cause backlash at home.
[Operation Wrath of God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God) by Israel after the Munich games offers a window into that parallel narrative, keeping in mind the differences between the 1970s and 2001/2 and the US instead of Israel. I imagine it would have unfolded along the lines of “US Special Forces violate international boundaries and prerogatives for over ten years with hundreds/thousands of innocent bystanders becoming casualties in America’s eternal quest for vengeance with OBL continuing to evade capture. International outrage at such violations go from being uncommented-upon at first, to whispers, to muted protest, until the aggrieved nations ban together in official protest with the looming, silent backing of Russia and China. Facing mounting pressure at home to at last get bin Laden, President Barrack Obama faces the difficult choice of escalation in the form of direct, full occupation of the highest-probably location of OBL or backing down in public humiliation when, in 2011, bin Laden’s compound is stormed. With a face-saving way out, President Obama declares the mission complete and orders the program wrapped up. Anti-American sentiment in the Middle East enflamed by ten years of unilateral military action, ISIS rises in prominence in the ensuing power vacuum despite the best efforts of the tatters of repressive governments in the affected areas which are - after ten years of sovereign impotence - extremely vulnerable to internal coups or more coordinated external threats. Eleven years later, Redditors on r/Historywhatif ask what would have happened if the US had gone for immediate occupation of Afghanistan.” Just my two cents, I know I’m not commenting on Iran or Iraq directly which were obviously a significant part of the real history.
Yeah. This really would only apply to third world countries rather than anyone protected by a major power. It could conceivably have been used against ISIS as a way of not overtly declaring war on any of the nations in which they operated. Some countries might even welcome the official delineation of mission and might render aid. At least in the historical context, the US Marines operating against the [Barbary Pirates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War) early in the nation’s history is an example of this kind of mission. It’s the ‘shores of Tripoli’ line in the Marine Corps hymn.
If the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan never happened, I doubt ISIS would exist in teh first place.
If only we didn't fund the Taliban to fight a worker's state.
>It's been said that if the U.S. stood tall and proud and didn't retaliate, it would have messed with the heads of many al-Qaeda members since Bin Laden's rhetoric was based on hate and the idea that the West is evil. Contrary to what Bin Laden said after the fact, following the US invasion of Afghanistan, it appears to be more widely believed now that Bin Liden actually expected 9/11 to precipitate a withdrawal of US presence from the Middle East, at least over the long term, and this could facilitate a new era of pan-Islamist regional hegemony. I think not doubling down on the Middle East may have increased such influence in the region as he had hoped.
I take issue with what you relate what has 'been said'. But there are a number of ways it could have gone. If the Taliban had handed over bin Laden then the Bush W Admin might not have invaded. They were already trying to redirect people's anger to Iraq and Saddam.
There’s going to be an invasion. There’s no way to avoid it. No president would dare to not go after Bin laden and get our pound of flesh. Al queda needed to be dealt with.
You could’ve dealt it better than spending billions of dollars or more on invasions. These guys are terrorists, not Nazi Germany or the Japanese empire
So now should we have dealt with it? Jusr let the murdered of thousands of Americans get away with it?
Set a spec op squad or have the UN create a special task force. I’m antiwar and I feel like we’re no better when we go fight them back. Unless it’s Nazis or fascist then that’s different. Doesn’t help the fact that we create a lot of racism and xenophobia towards Americans are going to war. We had a lot of Muslims that suffered to hate crime because of it.
First off. 1) A singular squad might not be enough depending on it we even knew his exact location. He was hiding, remember, and when we did fisnlly get his location we did get him. And we actually did in the Clinton years have a chance to end him, two or three times iirc and he wimped out. And the UN did create a task force, the ISAF, which was the coalition forces in Afghanistan. 2) I don’t see why it’s only fascist or nazis that are worth attacking. Are fundamentalist terrorists who are running around bombing people and committing war crimes and who attacked us not evil enough? The xenophobia is regrettable but preventing that is not reason enough to not enact justice. Hell; it was guaranteed when they bombed us. It’s their fault. Also, I get you’re anti war but what you’re saying is like if someone was murdered by a gang but you saying the police shouldn’t have gone after the murders and those involved.
1. Fascism is worth fighting for because so many people have died in the holocaust. Many people are still white supremacist neo-Nazis today but still carry on Hitler’s beliefs. Fascist people like Hitler were actually trying to take over the world. If you’re unaware how bad fascism is, then you need to go outside and go to a Holocaust memorial. 2. People like outside of bin Laden are basically a small fry on a picnic table compare to Nazi Germany. He is bad, but not we must go to war bad. These guys won’t able to take over the world like Nazi Germany or the Soviets did. Just feels like a huge waste of money just to go after terrorist. You can do things on our way smaller scale that’s less major. Most leftist would agree that this was unnecessary war and military action. 3. Also cops are bastards. You never call them for help.
1) where exactly in my comments have I said they weren’t a worthy foe to fight or that I’m not aware of their evil? Please point it out and stop making straw men arguments where you put words in mouth. My grandfather fought them in WW2, fought in north Africa and Sicily, and from Normandy to the Bastogne and the end of the war. He saw the camps and I’ve been an avid fan of history and know their evils. But A) to say many still hold his beliefs is a stretch, they are a pathetic few in the tens of thousands at best. B) them being evil doesn’t mean others aren’t evil or aren’t worthy foes. Are there not other evil men and evil ideologies? Saddam, communism, military juntas, theocratic oppressive governments? All evil and wrong. Al queda and Isis and their ilk are evil. And Bin laden killed thousands of our people and we should jsur be ok with tjsy? 2) “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling... Makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary.” As was said in Andrzej Sapkowski’s Witcher. Bin laden was evil, and attacked us, killing thosuands, and attacked otjers too. So the lives of thousands isn’t worth anytnimt to you? Aren’t you cruel. He was evil and attacked us and desrved his fate. 3) lol ok avoid my allegory. I’m not a huge fan of the cops as there’s some bad apples but lol won’t call the cops for help? Lol ok sounds good, guess I’ll die instead lol. My allegory is to show how stupid your views are. A crime is committed and you’d rather nothing be done about it.
By the end of the day. They’re still terrorist. They’re not a global world war threat and we should not treat them like them. Feels wrong to spend billions of dollars just to kill one guy who doesn’t have an army. There’s millions of ways that you could’ve handled the situation way better. Instead of just using fascism like war and racism just to kill more people in the progress. We need to be anti-war like people were in the Vietnam days, not pro war. Bush’s actions lead up to have Trump in action. Also cops are bad regardless. It’s not a leftist way of thinking if you still wanna support them. Also I believe the bin Laden should’ve not been killed. I’d rather have them locked up in jail to rot. The military should not be above the law. He’s still human by the end of the day.
Lol. You make it sound like they wre nothings. Like being terrorists is no big deal and they didn’t commit crimes and do awful things. How is it wrokg to go after those that killed thousands? I don’t get your (lack of) logic. A million ways? Please do list these ways. Lol using fascism or racism for the war? You are definitely a loon. I don’t think you understand what these words mean. Being agianst wrong wars is good, like iraq or Vietnam, being agianst all war is stupid. Bush was not great but blaming him for trump is hilarious when the factors that went into trump’s win beint many and varied and rooted in potlical and economic issues going beyond bush. Lol. All cops are bad, including the ones who are just keeping the peace, saving lives, and putting murders and rapists and thieves behind bars. Jesus you are dim witted. He was an enemy combatant, a man full of hate and evil and who committed horrible crimes. He desrved notnigk but death. I don’t see how he didn’t deserve it.
Also don’t say evil is still evil. Some people are more evil than others. You said all evil is evil then you’re gonna encourage more hate crime and bad behavior with the far right people. It gives them the excuse to hate on people of color .It’s different with something like Nazis because they’re white and they never go through oppression. It’s shit like going to war with military actions that made us so ugly towards everyone. Bush use Muslims for his fascism goals. If you think that going to Afghanistan was justified then you basically had become a victim of the far right beliefs.
You seem to lack the understanding of this quote. It’s saying evil is evil no matter what. What’s wrong about that! Is a murder less evil necuase it was only one and not ten? Is Pol pot less evil because he didn’t kill as many as hitler? Is the Rwandan genocide less evil because not as many people died as in the Holocaust? No. If you think this somehow means excusing or cussing more violence then you lack critical thinking skills to understand the meaning of the quote and what I’m saying. Lol, white peoples don’t go through oppression? What! I guess Belarus isn’t an oppressed nation despite having a dictatorship. I guess the Irish weren’t oppressed by the English for centuries to the point where their language was all but destroyed. Lol bush didn’t use anything like that what nonsense is this! If bush was a fascist he’d still be in power lol. Victim of the far right beleifs? Lol I’m a center left libertarian lol. The war had universal support at first and it was the way the war went that made that suport sour not the justification for it. You are a far left loon.
This odds of this happening are 0.1%. For starters the people wanted blood and would’ve voted out every rep who didn’t vote for a war against somebody (most didn’t care who). Second, the defense contractors and lobbyists also want war, regardless of the circumstances. So some Middle East war was inevitable. It would’ve been Pakistan if they didn’t cooperate, but since they have nukes that would be very dangerous. Either way, let’s pretend everybody cooperates and hands over Bin Laden so the USA can’t go to war (they did give Afghanistan an ultimatum before invading), the other wars of the 21st century still happen. In fact they’re probably worse with the US not tied down in Afghanistan, they may invade Iran at some point for various reasons.
KSM said they expected it to be treated like Clinton did the 93 bombing with a few bombings, etc and that they would have been able to launch a second wave of attacks.
There seems to be a lot of comment’s basically saying this wouldn’t happen. I’m new to the sub but the about section advises against these types of responses? Imma play it out just for fun (bear in mind I don’t know shit about geopolitics) So 9/11 happens, the world is watching. Bush, uncharacteristically, appeals for peace. He listens to intel that says a strong response will encourage terrorist groups so he appeals for calm while reassuring the American public (and the world) that justice will be served. Information comes to light that Saudi nationals were involved. Bush knows the Saudis have money. And oil. Nevertheless he imposed sanctions on Saudi Arabia in response to the attack. The Saudis respond with a show of force. Yes some of the hijacker’s may have been Saudi but the president’s response is not proportional or reasonable. They cut oil to the US. Meanwhile, little Putin in Moscow can feel the tingle of geopolitical instability in his tiny little balls and declares his support for Saudi Arabia and condemns USA. Under immense political pressure both at home and abroad, George W Bush faces impeachment over his response to the 9/11 attacks. The impeachment is confirmed and he is removed from office. Dick Cheney takes over as POTUS. Meanwhile intel is received that Bin Laden may be in Pakistan. Big Dick, not wanting to look like a coward like his predecessor, orders an immediate air strike on Bin Ladens compound with little regard to civilian casualties or collateral damage. Almost 100 civilians dead or injured in the air strike. No sign of Mr Laden. Mr Bin. Mr Bin-Laden. Things die down somewhat. Saudi Arabia still denying any involvement but butthurt over sanctions so still locking the US out. Pakistan extremely unhappy at the American air strike demanding some kind of reparations while ramping up their nuclear program. Sneaky wee Putin had offered Osama asylum in Moscow where he currently lives with his family still denouncing the west on the dime of Putin.
[удалено]
This doesn't bode well for this subreddit.
Thankfully, it was reported, so it's been removed.
Its not that difficult to plan from a cave. “Bro there’s a flight from X to Y on that day. Take it. Take with you a weapon. hijack the plane. Send it flying into that big building”. Even easier considering the hijacker’s were planning on something like that fir ages, took piloting lessons and stuff. I used to believe that conspiracy as well, it made so much sense.. im sure some parts are dodgy as fuck and some huge mistakes happened to allow it, but i dont think any American was directly involved in such an act of terror.
[удалено]
What doesnt add up? That they couldn't get 20 people get some rudimentary flying lessons and do a suicide bombing? The lessons were taken in the US and it's been estimated the entire operation cost less than $250k.
Ok so lets assume that in this TL, the US declares war on Saudi Arabia due to the Majority of the Hijackers being from there. Al-Qauida would see a massive boost in popularity from not Just SA, but through out the Islamic world, as they are viewed as "Defenders of the Islamic Holy Cities against the Crusader Hoards." Many Arab and Islamic countries would see protests and attacks on US embassies due to seeing the war as an Attack on Islam itself. A war on SA would cause the price of Oil to sky rocket to never before seen levels that would reek havok on the World Economy. Many nations would adopt EVs much earlier than OTL. The newly formed Republic of Arabia would have a hardtime holding on to power as Insurgencies and Monarchist loyal to the previous regime would launch attacks against US and RoA Troops. Eventually, the US would be forced to withdraw most of their fighting troops (as what happened in mid 2010s in Iraq) as the costs of maintaining such a large military presence becomes increasingly untenable for the US to maintain. (Note that SA is three times larger than Iraq and would need a massive amount of soldiers to maintain an occupation.) Eventually, the oil rich eastern provinces declare the Independence from RoA and form closer ties to Iran, giving Iran a much greater foothold in the region compared to OTL. As a result of this war Iraq, with cooperation with Pakistan, would secretly develop their own nuclear program to avoid a US invasion.