A much weaker one than the insurgencies that existed in Iraq tho- and one which to a large extent is actually based across the border in Pakistan.
How would have Gore reacted to 9/11?
- Thread starter A Random Person
- Start date
A much weaker one than the insurgencies that existed in Iraq tho- and one which to a large extent is actually based across the border in Pakistan.
"Quite possible" is not a confident prediction. And "easier than Iraq" is not the same as "shower us with flowers".
Of course, the people who predicted a cakewalk in Iraq were wrong, but so were the people who predicted the surge wouldn't work. The prospects for every military operation need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. And while I don't happen to think an invasion of Iran would be a good idea, it's a mistake to just assume it would go badly because Iraq did, there are good reasons why it might go better.
Generally true, but it does not follow from that, that there will always be an insurgency after every invasion, or that every insurgency will be of equal size relative to the size of the invaded country. That was my point.
OK, all good points, but I'm waiting to be pointed in the direction of the evidence for your statement that there isn't much popular support among Iranians for the current regime and that lack of support is likely to trump the urge to defend the country that seems to be universal human response to an external attack.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd just like to see what you are basing your opinion on.
I STILL Think a President Gore would have Seen Terrorism Building to this Crescendo ...
According to High-Ranking Clinton-Staffers, they Tried Unsuccessfully to Make The Incoming Bush Administration Aware of The Threat Posed by Groups like Al-Qaeda ...
Something like 9/11 May have Occurred Anyway, But The US wouldn't Have been Caught Flat-Footed The Way it was in OTL!
I wouldn't call missile strikes a law enforcement approach. Ineffective, yes, but still military.
At the least it was the wrong type of military attack. George W Bush himself IIRC characterised the strikes as 'firing a two million dollar missile at a ten dollar tent just to hit a camel in the butt.'
True ...
But that being said, Blowing up someone's Main Means of Transportation is a VITAL War Aim ...
Besides, Often there was an Internationally Infamous Terrorist on The Camel's Back at The Time!
I don't want to get into a lengthy back-and-forth here about politics. For that we have our respective dailykoses and redstates. That said:
The problem here though is that the characteristic Jon0815 says would indicate a smoother occupation in Iran doesn't indicate that at all. The fact that the United States overthrew a minority-run dictatorship that was pretty repressive is the only thing that has given our occupation of Iraq a leg to stand on.
Iran is more ethnically and religiously homogeneous, and despite the restrictions placed by the theocracy on who can appear on the ballot and who can express themselves politically, the choice of the country's leaders is still made through elections, so there is a greater connection between the Iranian public and their leaders than was the case in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. So if Jon0815 is right that we wouldn't have to face in Iran an insurrection manned by an angry displaced minority elite, it's because we'd face an insurrection of the Iranians almost unanimously. And it should go without saying that people don't have to like their government to not like their government being overthrown by a foreign army.
Now, that said I'm not a fan of Ahmadinejad specifically or theocracy generally. But it is what it is.
The problem here though is that the characteristic Jon0815 says would indicate a smoother occupation in Iran doesn't indicate that at all. The fact that the United States overthrew a minority-run dictatorship that was pretty repressive is the only thing that has given our occupation of Iraq a leg to stand on.
Iran is more ethnically and religiously homogeneous, and despite the restrictions placed by the theocracy on who can appear on the ballot and who can express themselves politically, the choice of the country's leaders is still made through elections, so there is a greater connection between the Iranian public and their leaders than was the case in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. So if Jon0815 is right that we wouldn't have to face in Iran an insurrection manned by an angry displaced minority elite, it's because we'd face an insurrection of the Iranians almost unanimously. And it should go without saying that people don't have to like their government to not like their government being overthrown by a foreign army.
Now, that said I'm not a fan of Ahmadinejad specifically or theocracy generally. But it is what it is.
Again, your assertion here is contradicted by historical evidence. Germany 1945, Japan 1945, Panama 1989- in past instances where the US has invaded a nondemocratic country and forcibly installed a democratic government, the removal of the dictatorship was not followed by any significant insurrection. What distinguishes Iraq from the other three examples is its non-homogeneous nature, in particular the fact that one of the three major sectarian/ethnic groups had a motive to prefer the previous nondemocratic system.
Look at how much less post-Saddam insurgent activity there has been in the portion of Iraq which most resembles Iran: The largely homogeneous Shia south, where only about 200 coalition troops have been killed in combat since May 2003, vs. 3400 in the Sunni and mixed Shia-Sunni provinces to the north. And to a large extent, the violence that did occur in southern Iraq was the result of the dissolution of Iraq's national army, whereas the national army would probably not be dissolved in a post-invasion Iran.
Last edited:
Re: Gore's reaction to 9/11...
He invades Afghanistan pretty much as Bush did. He does not invade Iraq.
In 2004 Gore defeats McCain by a larger popular vote margin than Bush defeated Kerry in OTL, since Gore's post-9/11 approval ratings have not been diminished to the extent that Bush's were by Iraq in OTL.
In Gore's second term, his two SCOTUS appointments give the court a 7-2 liberal majority.
His popularity collapses in 2007-2008 when the housing bubble bursts.
The 2008 Dem nominee is Hillary, and she loses to whoever the GOP nominates, which is most likely McCain's 2004 running mate (no clue who that might have been- Jeb Bush maybe?), or perhaps George Allen ("macaca" moment is butterflied away in this TL). After 16 years of Dem rule, and with a bad economy, the public wants change.
Obama might still get elected to the Senate in this TL, but if he ever becomes president it is sometime after 2008.
He invades Afghanistan pretty much as Bush did. He does not invade Iraq.
In 2004 Gore defeats McCain by a larger popular vote margin than Bush defeated Kerry in OTL, since Gore's post-9/11 approval ratings have not been diminished to the extent that Bush's were by Iraq in OTL.
In Gore's second term, his two SCOTUS appointments give the court a 7-2 liberal majority.
His popularity collapses in 2007-2008 when the housing bubble bursts.
The 2008 Dem nominee is Hillary, and she loses to whoever the GOP nominates, which is most likely McCain's 2004 running mate (no clue who that might have been- Jeb Bush maybe?), or perhaps George Allen ("macaca" moment is butterflied away in this TL). After 16 years of Dem rule, and with a bad economy, the public wants change.
Obama might still get elected to the Senate in this TL, but if he ever becomes president it is sometime after 2008.
I think our love for alternate history play tricks on our minds. Al Gore winning is the perfect POD, his loss was incredible narrow so you could easily say he could win. And there is much that could have been done differently during the Bush era.
We combine those two facts and assume he would do things differently. But things aren't that easy.
We combine those two facts and assume he would do things differently. But things aren't that easy.
The factors that doomed the incumbent party in a 2008 bid for the white house would still prevail. Senator Obama (yes, I believe he would be elected in 2004) would not try to run for president in 2008, but he is young enough to be around for a good many years and popular enough to be re-elected to the senate in 2010.
The supreme court would be the big issue. The liberals would have the lead for some time, either 7-2 or 6-2-1 with Kennedy being the neutral voter.
And if McCain should win in 2008, the age factor might force him to step down in 2012.
Or if he did, he would lose to Hillary- in OTL he beat her largely as a result of her yes vote on the Iraq war, which wouldn't have happened in this TL.
If Gore won in 2000 then McCain would be challenging him in 2004, not 2008.
Probably the same way, initially, with an invasion of Afghanistan. It's not clear whether that would lead to a capture or killiing of OBL at Tora Bora. Probably not. The reason for the failure was the use of natives to guide Special Forces, who were untrustworthy. Those same guides would still be there.
Thereafter, there'd be continued interest in taking the war to Pakistan, rather than shifting interest to Iraq. This would put pressure on Pervez Musharaff, possibly causing his premature collapse and replacement by a democratic government. It is unlikely that it would allow US forces to operate in Pakistan freely, and so OBL would still remain at large.
The rest of his presidency would be focused on domestic security. I suspect there would still be something like the Dept of Homeland Security, but if there was a Patriot Act, it is unlikely it would be as drastic or last as long.
Gore was always into environmental concerns, so he would likely pursue those in office, pressing for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. What is certain is that he would not win his Nobel Prize, at least not when he has.
Without Iraq to cast a shadow over his presidency, support for the Democratic party would persist into the election of 2008, likely resulting in victory for Hillary Clinton as president.
It is possible that at President Gore would have acted against various financial abuses and we would be facing a normal modest downturn rather than what looks very scary indeed in economic terms.
Gore might also postpone the problems by rescuing Lehman brothers.
Otherwise the Democrats would get defeated heavily in 2008.
Gore might also postpone the problems by rescuing Lehman brothers.
Otherwise the Democrats would get defeated heavily in 2008.
IIRC, the Democrats had their own suggestions about a Patrot bill. I don't know what the difference would have been.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Same as Bush, including the PATRIOT Act. Considering what he started off as, perhaps even more aggressive than the Dubya.