This is a restored thread since the disastrous rollback of the forum to the 25th of December. Luckily, Google cache saved it up till Jan 6, but there were many more replies in the days after that. Unfortunately, I think they are all lost, but I'll preserve the initial comments here:
Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix, OPThink about it. I know it's a bit recent to start historical reflection, but some colossal things have occurred in these past 15 years since then. Imagine if 9/11 was completely thwarted or was never conceived of in the first place, with al-Qaeda relegated to working outside the US in hitting US targets like the USS Cole. Would George W. Bush have had his casus belli for war against either Afghanistan or Iraq? How powerful or influential would Iran be today if Saddam Hussein (or one of his sons succeeding him upon his death) was still in power over all of Iraq? Would the Arab Spring have even occurred? Would Syria, Libya, and Yemen be engulfed in civil wars at the moment? There's a lot of variables to consider, and yet 9/11 wasn't even a full two decades ago.Originally Posted by Dick CheneyAccording to the 2004 Iraq Survey Group report (led by Charles Duelfer) the CIA had found that Iraq had intended "to return to WMD production after sanctions were lifted," and that Saddam Hussein had effectively preserved key WMD materials and delivery assets needed to construct new WMD weapon arsenals in the future [1]. Among the delivery systems Iraq had kept in violation of UN 687 were Ababil-100 and Al-Samoud ballistic missiles, and among the systems he was trying to acquire were long range ballistic missiles from North Korea [2]. In addition to that, there is discernible evidence from captured Iraqi documents that suggests that Saddam Hussein was able to siphon off an estimated $13 billion through illegal oil smuggling. According to the Duelfer Report again, France, Russia, and China had all received oil kickbacks through the UN Oil-for-Food program and were complicit in helping Iraq undermine UN weapon sanctions [1].
So no, I'm not buying any proposals that the Iraq War was a mistake or that the world is somehow better off with Saddam Hussein still in power. Without 9/11, regime change might not have happened -i'll give you that- but you still have a very explosive and delicate WMD proliferation problem in the Middle East and a tyrannical, homicidal dictator who was determined to undermine the international community by escaping his post-war agreements and intending to develop weapons of mass destruction. Either way, 9/11 or no, US military action was inevitable.
Plus there was this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan - (the most dangerous terrorist of the 20th century) who effectively sold WMD materials and nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya, Syria, and North Korea...
Leading to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard
(1)https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/...y_Findings.pdf
(2)http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/wo...pagewanted=allOriginally Posted by SLN445I'm not sure you would have a full blown invasion of Iraq, a lot of what allowed it to take place was the bubble of post 9/11 rise in fear and patriotism, something that was well and truly spent by the time Iran and N Korea started being nuisances again.
I think the Arab Spring would still occur, but likely a lot less of a Radical Religious element.
What would happen in America is difficult to tell, 9/11 pretty much ended the flow of the last 10 years and set it on its current path.Originally Posted by CyclopsIIRC Bush took his focus off terrorists and put them on finding excuses to invade Iraq. It wasn't so much an open secret that he was planning and invasion as a plain fact: he was openly mocked in the press for it (I recall the Onion and democratic mouthpieces doing so).
Dick Cheney above gives reasonable evidence Saddam Hussein would have given Bush his excuse eventually but without 9/11 or some kind of war I think Bush was a one termer: most likely Cheney would cook up some nonsense and go hard at the UN to legitimise the invasion. Its possible he'd be impeached before it kicked off.
"[Dick Cheney]...
So no, I'm not buying any proposals that the Iraq War was a mistake or that the world is somehow better off with Saddam Hussein still in power. Without 9/11, regime change might not have happened -i'll give you that- but you still have a very explosive and delicate WMD proliferation problem in the Middle East and a tyrannical, homicidal dictator who was determined to undermine the international community by escaping his post-war agreements and intending to develop weapons of mass destruction. Either way, 9/11 or no, US military action was inevitable."
Yep that's pretty much nailed it. I'd add that with Saddam Hussein it still couldn't be worse. Previously Iraq's narrowly based dictatorship turned a lot of its energy inwards supressing its own people with a savage cruelty. As with Syria regime change the savage cruelty is spilling over borders. Something can something worms something, my hindsight is 20/20.
Without 9/11? Iran would still be stoking nukes, and Israel would be sweating bullets and dropping bombs about that. Regimes across the Islamic world would be subject to the coups and giving two-faced support for terrorism that they have been for the last 50 years. 9/11 didn't destabilise Yemen or Libya or Egypt or Syria, although it probably put public sentiment on the side of sticking our fingers into the fire.
IIRC the '83 bombing in Lebanon had confirmed the US public's suspicion about sending troops anywhere. Clinton was under extreme pressure about sending troops anywhere, whether Rwanda or Bosnia no matter the justice of the cause, and 'Black Hawk down" demonstrated how unpopular a handful of deaths could be. While Bush snr could form an alliance with a clear mission (that first invasion of Iraq was a beautifully executed bit of work at a diplomatic as much as a military level) fuzzy missions like "invade and don't ;leave until they greet you as liberators" would not have been tolerated.
I'm not a "NEWAIJ" nut, but I have to acknowledge how much of a godsend the hit on the WQTC was for an aimless and ill intentioned administration with pretty much nothing on the agenda aside from hitting Iraq for six. Cheney rode the blind rage that was generated all the way into Baghdad.
I'm thinking no 9/11 means in 2006 Al Gore is faced with a resurgent Saddam looking around for trouble, probably killing Kurds for fun, and has to construct a humanitarian campaign backed by military intervention without stepping on the toes of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Israel, Russia or Congress (and then halfway in the GFC hits). He'd go about as well as Bush II I'm guessing.