Bush hits Al-Qaeda early

Adam Parsons · Aug 31, 2004

Now, I might be wrong about this, so bear with me...

In October 2000, the USS Cole was attacked by what we now know were Al-Qaeda operatives. At the time, though, the identity of the attackers was unclear, and the presidential election in the USA probably tied Clinton's hands somewhat. After Bush came to power, he appearantly didn't do anything about the attack.

So, what if he'd decided to smack the terrorists about a bit then? Nothing major: a few cruise missiles lobbed around, a few raids on training camps in south Asia. Might this cow Al-Qaeda enough to prevent 9/11?

Doctor What · Aug 31, 2004

Not in the slightest, unfortunately. By late 2000/early 2001, most of the 9/11 guys were already in the U.S. or putting the final touches on their part of the plan.

At worst--the timetable might have changed a bit, either because some mid-level operative got himself killed before he finished his part (forcing the plan to be delayed a bit so instead of talking about '9/11' we'll be talking about '11/9' or something) or, because of all them bombs exploding everywhere, someone higher up decides that the U.S. is onto them and accelerates the timetable (so we get '7/11' instead).

The only way to have stopped 9-11 was to nail the guys who were already in the states.

Raymann · Aug 31, 2004

I doubt it as the operation was already planned out the most of the terrorists were already in America. Politically wise it would put a lot of the blame for the intelligence failures leading to 9/11 on the Democrats as Clinton did little to stop them during his terms and Bush started off his by fighting them. Depending on what happens in the intervening months, 9/11 might be seen as an exculation of the conflict then the start of one. The attack on Afganistan might also occur sooner if it is seen that we're already at war with them. Also we might add operations to route out terrorists camps elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa instead of just focusing on Afganistan and Iraq.

Grey Wolf · Aug 31, 2004

Well, I don't know if thats entirely true, Dr What

But 'a few raids on training camps in South Asia' means what ? I assume perhaps you include Afghanistan there - it would be tantamount to a declaration of war, but given the situation in Afghanistan probably not taken as one, though it may well create heated and uncontrolled passions in Pakistan which would be a lot worse than OTL. As for South Asia - do you mean Malaysia ? Indonesia ? That would be attacking territory within an ally or friendly country's territory unilaterally and without direct provocation. One can assume THAT would not have gone down too well, well almost anywhere

Grey Wolf

Raymann · Aug 31, 2004

I've seen that generally when the US puts out a missle strike, most countries aren't too keen about declaring war on us. They might go to the UN but thats about all. In recent memory we're hit targets in Iraq, Yeman, Syria, Algeria, and Sudan and they've done next to nothing.

Grey Wolf · Aug 31, 2004

Raymann said:
I've seen that generally when the US puts out a missle strike, most countries aren't too keen about declaring war on us. They might go to the UN but thats about all. In recent memory we're hit targets in Iraq, Yeman, Syria, Algeria, and Sudan and they've done next to nothing.

Syria and Algeria ?

Grey Wolf

Raymann · Aug 31, 2004

Syria back when we were in Lebonon and I meant Libya, not Algeria; I always get 'em confused.

NapoleonXIV · Aug 31, 2004

Raymann said:
Politically wise it would put a lot of the blame for the intelligence failures leading to 9/11 on the Democrats as Clinton did little to stop them during his terms and Bush started off his by fighting them.

Actually, Clinton had several things going to fight terrorism. One, which would dry up the money through reforming banking laws to make money laundering for terrorism more difficult would almost certainly have stopped 9/11 since it would have cut off the most needed money at the most crucial time. It was blocked by Senator Phil Gramm until after Clinton left office, and not mentioned again until after 9/11.

Adam Parsons · Sep 8, 2004

Odd, I would have thought that a few minor operations directed against Al-Qaeda in the early months of Bush's presidency might get him (and/or his advisors) to think a bit more about Al-Qaeda, and maybe pay attention to a few reports that seemed to have been overlooked in OTL. That's my opinion anyway.

aktarian · Sep 8, 2004

Alasdair Czyrnyj said:
So, what if he'd decided to smack the terrorists about a bit then? Nothing major: a few cruise missiles lobbed around, a few raids on training camps in south Asia. Might this cow Al-Qaeda enough to prevent 9/11?

The problem with "a few raids" is that only realistic ways for raiders to reach Afghansitan are over Paksitan or Iran. Neither of which would be keen to allow US overflights.

zoomar · Sep 8, 2004

Personally, it seems to me that lobbing a few cruise missiles at Al-Qaida targets in Afghanistan and elsewhere would have been appropriate for either Clinton or Bush. Hell, we knew they were our enemies and wanted to kill us, so even if they had not been behind the Cole Attack itself, they had it coming.

But to really do Afghanistan right, the US needed a true causus belli like 9/11, as the answer to terrorism is putting real pressure on the states which harbor, support, and give them lip service. Any military response other than regime change or sovereignity reduction (how's that for a neat Wolfowitzian expresoin) is probably wasted effort.