President Gore and 9/11
This is an off-shoot from another conversation. If Gore had been President in 2001, what would have happened differently? I found the most analytical answer here:
Excerpts:
Question: Would President Al Gore have been as militarily aggressive as George Bush?
Answer: Probably more militarily aggressive. Why?
Because Gore's natural opponents (the Republicans) would be goading him and calling him a weak leader unless he was VERY aggressive militarily, while Bush's natural opponents (the Democrats) are restraining him by goading him and calling him a cowboy (and other things).
George W. Bush with Russian President Vladimir Putin
Question: Would President Al Gore have ordered an invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11, as Bush did?
Answer: What other response was possible? Of course Gore would have invaded Afghanistan.
Question: Would President Al Gore have ordered an invasion of Iraq?
Answer: The answer has to be "almost certainly." The Clinton administration had a stated policy goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power, and Al Gore would have inherited that goal.
In fact, Gore would almost certainly have invaded Iraq much sooner than Bush did. In early 2002, Republicans were strongly urging Bush to invade Iraq, and Democrats were urging caution. The Democrats won out in the sense that they forced Bush to delay an invasion for a year.
If Gore were President, then both Republicans and Democrats would have been in favor of an invasion, and any delay by Gore would have been attacked by the Republicans as indicating Gore's weakness in foreign policy. Thus, Gore would have been pressured to invade more quickly than Bush.
5 comments:
B.S. on the invasion of Iraq. They knew better than to open the can of worms Bush opened for no valid reason.
It's not BS since it's alternate history to begin with - it's called speculation. Not liking it doesn't make it BS.
I think the author's point on political pressure may be valid. Clinton ordered Iraq bombed on a number of occasions for far lesser crimes. Would Tenet or the other intelligence gurus have told Gore anything different than what they told Bush? I don't think so.
And it would have been the 4th major terrorist attack under Clinton/Gore. There would have been enormous pressure for military action. The Democrats were not so anti-Iraq war in 2001-2 as they are now.
As I said before, it's all speculation.
But here's another aspect I just thought of. Immediately after 9/11 Pakistan cut all ties with the Taliban and it was clear that Musharif of Pakistan was scared to death of Bush and American response (look at some videos from then). Would Pakistan have turned ally with President Gore? Or would the Afghanistan - Iraq conflicts have been turned into Afghanistan - Pakistan conflicts with maybe India as an ally.
Don't be too quick or too partisan to dismiss this line of thinking. It's a fascinating thought exercise, IMHO.
"Clinton ordered Iraq bombed on a number of occasions for far lesser crimes."
And what crime are you referring to here that these others were lesser than?
I may have used the wrong word. Substitute "perceived wrongs" for "crimes", maybe.
By the time Bush came to office, Saddam was paying Palestinian suicide bomber families thousands of dollars and showing utter contempt for the inspection process. Also, the UN oil-for-food scandal broke.
And 9/11 heightened sensitivity to all potentially hostile actions.
So who is this guy and why do you give his opinion so much value?
I tried to find out his sources, rationales, etc on that web site but there is nothing. I still say his comment (no real rationale) about Gore invading Iraq sooner than Bush did is ridiculous. Bush is *quoted* as saying he intended to do so *if* he became president. 9/11 was just an easy reason (in his mind) to get to do it.
Post a Comment