Redstate

It seems to me that absent the jihadist threat & attacks, Bush would likely have gone through a somewhat Clintonian presidency. The economy would have recovered quickly and grown even more than it has, considering the tax cuts. He probably would have spent a lot on domestic programs (remember, no GWOT funding).

It is difficult to say if Bush could have won without the terror issue. Conventional wisdom is he couldn't have. But he won without it in 2000, and with a percieved peace and a strong economy behind him, he may well have been poised for a victory like Clinton's in 96. But it is hard to say what would have emmerged as the campaign issues, thus it is impossible to predict the election.

Of course, the terror threat would not be absent, just waiting in the wings. Would Al Queda and Saddam, with a restarted weapons program, have gotten together without the 2003 US invasion to attack America? Endless other senarios exist, and some are still possible today.

Ultimately, I think the idea of asking, "What if 9/11 never happened?" is far too complex. There are too many variables. It's like asking, "What if Gavrilo Princip never shot Franz Ferdinand?" Obviously, no WWI, at least not at that point. Probably no Hitler, no Holocaust, no Israel. Possibly no Soviet Union, no WWII, no nuclear weapons, no Cold War, no UN, no Mao, no Korean War, no Fidel Castro, no Vietnam, no moon landing, no Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, no CIA traing bin Laden, no Al Queda, no 9/11. On the other hand, WWI might just have been delayed a few years, Germany might have got the bomb first in WWII, the US, Britain, and Russia might be radioactive sheets of glass. It is impossible to say. What seem like small details could have huge ramifications (ie no WWI, some guy doesn't die, he does something huge). To be fair, WWI probably changed things significantly more than 9/11 did. Still, what the world would be like without it is still anyone's guess.

into Afghanistan would have definitely made the presidency look weak.

I think at the very least the invasion of Afghanistan needed to happen, otherwise I think Bush would have come across as a Carterish type president (not as bad, but somewhat).

I would like to think that all the people throwing hissy fits over Iraq would have actually still supported Afghanistan, but I suspect if you turned back the clock, and invaded Afghanistan only, and not Iraq that the same people whining about Iraq, would be whining about Afghanistan-everyone wants a war to protest.

It's a fascinating question, and now, Pejman, you have given me another 20 pages of reading to do in the pages of New York Magazine to hear what some other people have had to say on the subject -- great link, BTW.

I think the question is a bit closer to asking how the world would have differed if the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor. Would the United States have delayed its entry into World War II until the Germans had achieved an insurmountable advantage? Would the Germans have been successful in developing the atomic bomb, and would we have ever used it, ushering in the age of weaponized atomic energy?

I think that a 9/11-type event was inevitable someplace in the world, and probably in the United States, even if it hadn't happened precisely on September 11, 2001. It may have been a nuclear or a chemical attack rather than the form that it took with hijacked airliners -- it actually could have been a lot worse. And let's not forget that the death toll at the WTC would have been much higher if the planes had hit the towers just an hour later. I think in a sense that a 9/11-type event was very probable because of the strength of al-Qaida and the money at its disposal, and the fact that we had not, as a planet, been galvanized to combat al-Qaida directly.

I agree that the economy would have improved significantly if 9/11 had been delayed by six months. But the really gripping question to me about 9/11 is what would have happened if Flight 93 had reached its intended target instead of slamming into the ground in Pennsylvania? I think the United States would have been thrown into complete, utter chaos, and martial law very well may have been imposed as a result of the destruction of the White House or the Capitol Building. After that, all bets about what the world might have looked like are off. We very well may have gone to war with nuclear weapons.

I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.

But I think that it is an interesting "what if?" I thought Bush was already mired in his rhetorical doldrums before 9-11. He was already making self-deprecating remarks about himself, already showing the lack of self-confidence that is so apparent today. It seems that briefly, after 9-11, and up through the aircraft carrier landing, he seemed to get a self-confidence boost, due to the country rallying behind him after 9-11. But then when the sniping began again he seemed to revert back to his pre-9-11 demeanor. Not responding to critics, afraid to articulate and spiritedly defend himself and his policies.

As far as the economy goes, it is doing very well now, but the press ignores it and the President is afraid to talk it up. How would that have been any different if there had never been a 9-11?

Also, Bush was elected with a minority of the popular vote in 2000, his victory basically caused by an unlikely tallying of the Electoral College vote.

So, it seems to me, with no 9-11, we would have had a booming economy no one knew about, a President whose popularity would have been constantly eroding with no 9-11 or early Iraq war boost, and a president who was unable to or afraid to articulate his views, his successes or answers to critics. So without the wartime boost, which barely propelled Bush over a terrible opponent, I think Bush would have been a 1-term president and have left office a very unpopular leader.

An interesting question is what would have happened if Gore had won in 2000 and 9-11 had happened. More than likely, he and the media would have used the event to solidify the Democratic party's hold on the electorate. Any criticism of him or his policies would be cast as unpatriotic by the media, and we would be looking today at the Democrats increasing their hold on the Congress, rather than looking with fear on their possible ascendancy this November.

WW l wasn't just started by the assassination of an archduke who wasn't and never would be in line for the Austrian throne. The Austrian empire had severe tensions, Serbian nationalism was aflame, a Balkan war had already occurred, an arms race was on, alliances formed, and colonialism added to the mix.

I don't know about a 9/11 type event but with Saddam loose and a supporting cast of world wide murderers I would think the when, not if, holds true. It was the perceived weakness of America that precipitated the attack, starting and stopping with Afghanistan would not have altered the perception. In the meantime the left would have found other and equally crazed reasons for hating Bush.

Can you doubt that they still rage at the 2000 election and that the Florida Supreme Court was unable to steal it for their guy.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

" The death of the heir apparent, the archduke Rudolf in 1889, made Francis Ferdinand next in succession to the Austro-Uungarian throne,---- but because of Francis Ferdinands ill health, his younger brother Otto was considered more likely to succeed, a possibility that deeply embittered Francis.

"His desire to marry Sophie von chotel, a lady in waiting, brought him into sharp conflict with the Emperor and the court. Only after renouncing his future children's rights to the throne was the morganatic marriage allowed in 1900."
Encyclopaedia Britannica

Perhaps not iron clad but I'll stick to my post. It would hardly be likely that FF could accede to the throne given the above, especially the part about any future children losing claims to succession.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville