New York Magazine has several different writers provide their scenario for What If 9/11 Never Happened? As anyone who has watched Star Trek knows, change one thing and the whole time line changes in unpredictable ways. (Actually that’s how I see the consequences of the 2000 election going to Bush rather than the rightful winner). Most likely other events would have changed things in unpredictable ways, but even considering this I cannot resist providing my own comments on what might have happened.
There would have been a major difference in the lives of both those personally involved and many public officials. George Bush was looking like a one-term President in August, 2001 and without fear of terrorism it is doubtful he would have been reelected. Rudy Giuliani would have retired as Mayor and most likely would now be living in obscurity.
Some have suggested that, without a war, the Democrats would not have nominated John Kerry. I disagree, believing Kerry was the natural front runner based upon his overall record. He would have remained front runner through 2003 as Howard Dean, without the war, would have been a minor candidate, assuming he still decided to run. The former Governor of Vermont might have created some interest with his proposals for universal health care and early childhood education, but he would not have challenged Kerry as he did. The one wild card is if Al Gore had decided differently and entered the race. Gore, not Hillary, is the ten ton gorilla who could be the front runner for the nomination in 2004 or 2008 if he chose to run.
Another big loser would have been Kiefer Sutherland. Without 9/11, 24 would never have been a big hit and Sutherland would not have revived his career. Many authors, such as Jay McInerney, would not have had 9/11 for their novels. McInerney might have had to stick to writing about wine rather than returning to his novelist career.
The consensus of the scenarios is that Saddam would have still been in power. Most likely this is true, but Bush had the goal of removing Saddam before 9/11. The attack was just his excuse, and perhaps he would have found some other way to get support for an attack. Fabricating a different excuse wouldn’t have been beyond him.
This assumes no terrorist attack, but sooner or later al Qaeda would have acted. Considering the slow time scale they work by, if their plans for 9/11 didn’t succeed it is likely that a major attack would not have been reattempted until John Kerry or Al Gore was in the White House. In either case we’d have a more competent government which would have been more willing to pay attention to warnings of attack. The old recommendations from the Clinton Administration for fighting al Qaeda might even have been dusted off before an attack. On the other hand, without the experience of 9/11 we’d be less vigilant, and perhaps last week’s plans in Great Britain would have succeeded.
In reality, the question may not have been whether but when we’d be faced with a direct confrontation with al Qaeda and other extremist groups. The difference may have been that it would have occurred when we had a more rational government here. A Kerry or Gore government would have responded to the crisis rationally, and would not have used it to play politics while placing the nation in greater danger as George Bush has done. Events might have forced Kerry or Gore to go into Afghanistan. They would have finished the job in Afghanistan, and perhaps a Kerry government would have had the opportunity to capture bin Laden in Tora Bora, rather than allowing him to escape by outsourcing the job.
