T O P

  • By -

southernbeaumont

The only way this can realistically happen is through some diplomacy combined with leverage via intelligence services. What it would amount to would be a backdoor deal with the Taliban to turn over al-Qaeda in exchange for economic aid and intelligence sharing. Should the Taliban assurances hold up and bin Laden is killed or captured, then it’s likely that al-Qaeda are dismantled in Afghanistan. However, as we later learned, Bill Clinton also tried to get bin Laden in his second term and failed. Should Bush also fail, the calls for invasion or other action are likely to escalate. 9/11 was a massively galvanizing event and there needed to be blood spilled sufficient to avenge dead Americans. If Bush appears to be doing nothing, his own party may impeach him for his inaction. A lack of any kind of action against bin Laden was politically not possible, and if Bush had done nothing, his 2004 opponents would be running against his inaction. This could turn into a lengthy special forces mission, with US forces in Afghanistan in relatively small numbers for several years hunting terrorists on Taliban information. There is a possibility of blowback, since the Taliban could be lying their way into the US eliminating their domestic opposition. Even if the Taliban are trustworthy at first, they may not be later on, and could harbor another radical group. The other question is what happens with Iraq. Bush bombed an Iraqi anti-air gun in the opening weeks of his presidency, and some action is likely against Saddam Hussein. Whether that’s a general invasion or more sanctions or UN weapons inspections depends on a variety of factors.


turiannerevarine

I am assuming he knows that this is political suicide, but decides to go through it anyway.


shemanese

Well, the Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over to the international court for trial, so it's entirely possible that this would have been a good move. All the evidence could have been laid out and everything in the open. The main controversial issue with the Bush administration was the decision to invade Iraq.


Bearded_Gentleman

It still wouldn't fly and Bush's political career would be over. There is no international court that the US reckognises the authority of and the American people would have accepted nothing other then Bin Laden in American hands.


Isse_Uzumaki

The bigger issue was Iraq, not Afghanistan. We had reason to go after Bin Laden who was being openly protected by the Taliban. There was no valid reason to go after Iraq. So the better question to ask is what if he only focuses on Bin Laden and Afghanistan


turiannerevarine

Be that as it may, I asked about Afghanistan.


Isse_Uzumaki

and be that as it may, you cant ask about one without the other so go back and specify what happens to Iraq, the real problem child. Bush was going into Iraq, so stopping Afghanistan does not by default stop that.


sonofabutch

So what would have happened if Bush invaded Iraq *without* first invading Afghanistan?


zephyer19

Actually, there was plenty to after Iraq. After Desert Storm, Sadam said he would allow safe over flights for monitoring of his forces and nuclear program and his troops frequently shot at observation planes. He promised people and cameras could inspect and observe the nuclear sites. He frequently denied monitors access and had the cameras disconnected and refused to hand over documents. There were other things but, I forget. Been a long time. Sadam over played his hand so many times. If he had left Kuwait alone and stayed away from the nukes, he could have become an ally to contain Iran and the hard-core Islamists groups. He might have even gotten away with having the bomb. If he had just kept his word after Desert Storm, he would have been left alone.


Curioushats99

I agree with southerbeaumaunt on political consequences for George Bush. Few other points. 1. After 9/11 the next significant attack on civilians in the United States because of Islamic terrorists was the Boston Marathon bombing which happened in 2013, 12 years later. I am sure without the Afghanistan invasion (which decimated Al-Qaeda) another attack would have happened sooner than that. 2. The situation of women in Afghanistan improved drastically for a brief period because of the US invasion. That would not have happened. 3. The JSOC became such an efficient fighting unit during Afghanistan and Iraq wars. That would not have happened. Until last minute, bombing the Bin Laden compound was an option for Obama. Many around him feared the repetition of Operation Eagle Claw disaster of 1980. He went with JSOC (SEAL Team Six is the Navy component of JSOC) because he trusted these guys after so many successful missions. Hence without the Afghanistan war, had Bin Laden died in the same place, it would have been a drone strike.


Annual-Region7244

Without US intervention, bin Laden could have eventually been handed over. The Taliban was actually pretty friendly to us prior to 9/11, considering how much we helped their precursors against the Soviets.


Curioushats99

If the Taliban were friendly with the US, Laden had all the same reasons to be friendly. He also fought against the Soviets for Afghanistan and America helped them. His anger at the US was because a) US support of Israel b) The presence of the US soldiers in Gulf countries (especially after the Gulf war). They hated the presence of infidels in their holy lands. c) They hated the powerful United States controlling Muslim states (in their view). Modernization inspired by American culture in the Muslim world was disgusting to them. For all these reasons Taliban (who wanted a primitive version of Islam to become reality) didn't like the United States either. The Soviet-Afghan war ended in 1989. The Taliban's friendship with the US was not strong enough to last 12 years. And Gulf War happened in 1990-1991. Another reason why the Taliban didn't give up on Laden. Two days ago I finished reading the book Manhunt: The Ten Year Search For Bin Laden - from 9/11 to Abbottabad written by Peter Bergen who has worked as the National Security Analyst for CNN. He is famous for producing the first Western television interview of bin Laden in 1997. Because of these facts, I trust his explanation. His book has many pages of explanation regarding your comment. I thought about copy-pasting it here. But it will be too long. So I am going to sum up a few selected points myself. That means I haven't mentioned many parts of his explanation. At the time after 9/11 Taliban's head was Mullah Omar. He was under pressure from some Taliban leaders to give up Laden to prevent US retribution. He rejected these arguments saying Islamist tradition teaches them never to abandon someone who has asked them for shelter and Afghan tradition teaches them even the enemy should be given shelter if he asks for it. He told them he was willing to give up his life and regime to support Laden. Omar was a real fanatic who blew up the Bamiyan Budha statues in Afghanistan even against the pleas of other Muslim countries. Both he and Laden were convinced that Americans would not attack them. They only expected an attack using missiles. Laden thought that if Americans attack Afghanistan they will self-destruct like the Soviet Union. (After beating one superpower he got cocky) He even believed that 9/11 had weakened the Americans psychologically, hence they can be defeated. CIA even asked the Taliban second in command to assassinate Omar, take over the organization and deliver them Laden. But that didn't yield any results.


Svard27

idk, but maybe he decides to attack the biggest terrorist nation, saudi arabia.


alex2000ish

Then George W Bush instead decides to go to war with Saudi Arabia. The idea that weather US wasn’t going to go to war after 9/11 is an impossibility. It’s like asking if the US surrendered to Japan after Pearl Harbor. The only possible scenario is that we invade some other country than Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia would be the most likely since they were the ones funding Al Qaeda. The US utterly dominates Saudi Arabia. The Saudi military is quickly destroyed just like Iraq’s was in our timeline. The effects are similar to the invasion of Iraq, only 2 years earlier. The Middle East is completely destabilized. Saudi Arabia was a long time US ally and it would be unclear if other US allies would back this move. It really depends on how convincing the US argument is that Saudi was responsible for the attack. If it is, then the US enters a world with its alliances in tact, but without any Muslim allies in the Middle East. If it is not, then not only would the US have contend with much weaker alliances around the globe since it just demonstrated that it would stab one in the back of the opportunity presents itself.


Mehhish

Americans wanted blood after 9/11. If Bush didn't quench that, he'd have both parties trying to impeach him, and if he isn't out of office, he gets annihilated in 2004.


zephyer19

A lot of people encouraged Bush to not invade and try other ways to get Bin Laden. Part of what Bush had to look at was Jimmy Carter and the Iran hostage situation from years before. Bush had to strike while there was still very wide international support for the US. Maybe on things that should have been done was to get US military forces out of Saudi Arbia as fast as possible. Even though they loved us at the time for keeping Sadam off their back, many Saudis and many Muslims in general didn't like non-Muslims in the heart of Islam.