9/11 Hijackers Foiled Days Before Attack: What Kind of Response?

[redlightning]

What if instead of the 9/11 hijackers are spotted in the days before the attack and it becomes obvious to officials that a was in motion that could have killed hundreds of Americans if it had been allowed to proceed by only a few days. How does the Bush administration respond to Al-Qaeda if it breaks up a plot like this just days before it happens?

 

[Pangur]

What if instead of the 9/11 hijackers are spotted in the days before the attack and it becomes obvious to officials that a was in motion that could have killed hundreds of Americans if it had been allowed to proceed by only a few days. How does the Bush administration respond to Al-Qaeda if it breaks up a plot like this just days before it happens?

If some or all hijackers are captured alive the follow on trial would be put the Saudi angle on show. As for a more immediate response without that number dead it would have been cruise missiles at the most IMHO

 

[Curiousone]

There'd still be war. Just war without the causus belli of 9/11. Negotiations with the Taliban got to the stage of 'take the carpet of gold or get a carpet of bombs' before then.

 

[JVM]

There's still a war in Afghanistan, but the 'rally around the flag' effect wears off in a couple months, rather than several years, and it takes the place of Iraq OTL once the Taliban's gone, as a war we need to get out of but can't seem to. Bush is more likely to lose re-election as national security is much less of a focus, and we probably see a much wider Democratic field.

 

[Pangur]

There's still a war in Afghanistan, but the 'rally around the flag' effect wears off in a couple months, rather than several years, and it takes the place of Iraq OTL once the Taliban's gone, as a war we need to get out of but can't seem to. Bush is more likely to lose re-election as national security is much less of a focus, and we probably see a much wider Democratic field.

How that does what work? (the war in Afganistan) The hijackers (most are Saudi )are caught before they can do anything and you have a president in the White House who's claim to the job is openly questioned.

 

[Brasidas]

How that does what work? (the war in Afganistan) The hijackers (most are Saudi )are caught before they can do anything and you have a president in the White House who's claim to the job is openly questioned.

Because it was Afghanistan that hosted the Al Qaeda training bases, and Osama bin Laden in particular.

I don't see an attack on Afghanistan lacking support under the circumstances.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Because it was Afghanistan that hosted the Al Qaeda training bases, and Osama bin Laden in particular.

I don't see an attack on Afghanistan lacking support under the circumstances.

How many of the hijackers were 'trained' in Afganistan? I'd thought the invasion was based on the Taliban government refusing to extradite/handover or otherwise cease sheltering Bin Laden & the other Al Qaeda leaders.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

I don't think there is enough public support for a war in Afganistan. There are are some drone attacks.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

If some or all hijackers are captured alive the follow on trial would be put the Saudi angle on show. As for a more immediate response without that number dead it would have been cruise missiles at the most IMHO

Agreed. THere would be no war.


At least until the next time.

 

[Curiousone]

How many of the hijackers were 'trained' in Afganistan? I'd thought the invasion was based on...

Ostensibly. War had been coming for a while.

http://www.salon.com/2002/06/05/memo_11/

"Atef’s memo shines new light on what al-Qaida knew about U.S. efforts to normalize relations with the Taliban in exchange for the fundamentalist government’s supporting the construction of an oil and gas pipeline across Afghanistan."

"The Bush White House stepped up negotiations with the Taliban in 2001. When those talks stalled in July, a Bush administration representative threatened the Taliban with military reprisals if the government did not go along with American demands."

 

[Super_Cool]

I think a no-fly zone in support of the Northern Alliance is politically possible. No boots on the ground, though. Americans won't tolerate that without a causus belli, and a potential terrorist attack is not that.

Bush would have no fly zones on Iraq and Afghanistan through his presidency.

 

[arrowiv]

Regarding the Saudi connection, Bush would have a lot of 'splaining to do on that!

 

[georgeinnj]

Why would Bush have to answer about the Saudi participation? What about the 8 prior years of Clinton being cozy with the Saudis. The Saudis were one of the biggest backers of the Clintons.

 

[UncleDynamite]

Bush gives the Taliban an ultimatum to hand over al-Qaeda and otherwise cooperate in exchange for recognition and development aid.

When the Taliban inevitably refuses, there's a short, brutal, air campaign against them and al-Qaeda, maybe some special operators go in, but no invasion. Best case scenario, air power and SpecOps(not just immediately, but a sustained air/SO campaign against any new camps that crop up) break AQ enough where they can't strike again, and the whole thing is a historical footnote, as are the few short air campaigns against Iraq and Iran.

Bush wins reelection in the face of a growing economy. He's able to get through his Social Security reform plan(with the economy growing as in OTL and little foreign distractions, he's able to sell it to the American people.) There's still Hurricane Katrina and a subprime mortgage crisis leading to a recession, though maybe the latter is is delayed a few months or otherwise doesn't tarnish Bush's record too badly. Bush is remembered as an above-average President.

 

[Iconoclast X]

It would give rise to a load of claims and books from 'truthers' that it was all a set-up by theUS authorities to heighten the level of anti-Muslim feeling and give an excuse for Bush and cohorts to zap some middle east nations.

 

[Torqumada]

Without 9/11, defending against Terrorism will be seen more as a law enforcement issue than a military one. There is no PATRIOT Act. There is no TSA. There is no opportunity for the Republicans to tout patriotism above all other concerns in politics. Without that, it will be difficult for President Bush to get elected. There is also the chance that the various anti gay marriage state constitutional amendments and laws don't get passed in 2004. There still might be action over Iraq, since many members of the Project for a New American Century people are in the administration and have stated that they want to go and get Saddam in September of 2000. They were the ones who lead the push after 9/11.

Torqumada

 

[Georgepatton]

Without 9/11, defending against Terrorism will be seen more as a law enforcement issue than a military one. There is no PATRIOT Act. There is no TSA. There is no opportunity for the Republicans to tout patriotism above all other concerns in politics. Without that, it will be difficult for President Bush to get elected. There is also the chance that the various anti gay marriage state constitutional amendments and laws don't get passed in 2004. There still might be action over Iraq, since many members of the Project for a New American Century people are in the administration and have stated that they want to go and get Saddam in September of 2000. They were the ones who lead the push after 9/11.

Torqumada

It's very much a whole different ballgame: nobody died, so the threat can be largely marked down as 'theoretical.' The law enforcement systems in place functioned as intended, and caught the people they were supposed to catch. There might be some commission that would study the cause of their getting into a position where such an attack was even possible, and making some fairly low-key changes, probably without any major public attention (maybe there will be a better system of interdepartmental information sharing, or improvements in airplane security, but Homeland Security and the TSA aren't really necessary), but it isn't in the same league as a successful attack. Success doesn't breed nearly the same changes as failure.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

There is also the chance that the various anti gay marriage state constitutional amendments and laws don't get passed in 2004. T

How would the lack of a 9/11 effect this?

 

[UncleDynamite]

There is also the chance that the various anti gay marriage state constitutional amendments and laws don't get passed in 2004. T

How would the lack of a 9/11 effect this?

With an economy as in OTL and no big polarizing wars, I doubt the GOP will need the big turnout of evangelicals to win, meaning far, far, less anti-SSM amendments on the ballot. Bush would probably never had made as big a shift to the right on social issues(by which I mean things like SSM, abortion, and stem cells, not the degradation of the family, an issue that he did focus on) which weren't a big part of his 2000 campaign.

 

[Alstein]

I think things would be worse for Bush in 2004 no 9/11. The economy was suffering. A lot of the mid-2000's Bubble was due to Bush wanting cheap money to prevent a post-9/11 recession (which was sane politics)