The second in a series of “what if’s…” that critically examine American history.
On September 11, 2001, the United States faced one of its darkest days when 19 terrorists associated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial airplanes, leading to the deaths of nearly 3,000 people. The attacks targeted the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., with a fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, crashing in Pennsylvania after passengers intervened. In the aftermath, questions arose about the preparedness of the Bush administration, given certain intelligence warnings leading up to the attacks.
But what if history had taken a different turn?
What if Al Gore, with his experience from the Clinton administration’s dealings with al-Qaeda, had won the 2000 election? This narrative explores that hypothetical scenario, imagining a world where President Gore’s leadership might have influenced the events leading up to that fateful September day.
November 2000: A New Era Begins
After weeks of legal battles and recounts, Al Gore emerges as the victor of the 2000 U.S. Presidential election. As he prepares to take office, Gore assembles a team comprising many veterans from the Clinton administration. These individuals, having dealt with international crises like the Balkans conflict and the rise of al-Qaeda, bring a wealth of experience to the table.
Early 2001: Prioritizing Counterterrorism
President Gore, still haunted by the memories of the USS Cole bombing and the U.S. embassy attacks in Africa, makes counterterrorism a cornerstone of his administration’s policy. He establishes the Counterterrorism Action Group (CAG), a high-level task force with representatives from all major intelligence and defense agencies. Their mandate: to review, consolidate, and act upon intelligence related to extremist threats, with a particular focus on al-Qaeda.
July 2001: The Phoenix Memo Raises Alarm
Real Event from History:
An observant FBI agent in Phoenix, Kenneth Williams, sends a memo to FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., noting an influx of students at flight schools who had connections to countries associated with extremist activities. While the memo does mention the students’ nationalities, Williams primarily focuses on their unusual training requests and patterns of behavior, such as seeking training on large aircraft without a proper background in aviation and making inquiries about cockpit security, which raised red flags.
Hypothetical Gore Response:
Given the Gore administration’s heightened focus on such threats, the memo doesn’t get lost in bureaucracy. Instead, it’s escalated to the CAG, which sees parallels with the earlier Bojinka Plot—a sinister plan from the mid-1990s that involved bombing multiple airliners and even proposed hijacking planes to target key American landmarks. President Gore, alarmed by the implications and recalling the Bojinka Plot, orders a nationwide sweep of flight schools to identify and monitor suspicious students. The CAG also begins to liaise with the FAA and major American airlines and assists them with developing new training programs for flight crews, cabin attendants, and ticketing agents based on lessons learned from the Bojinka Plot, including the possibility of hijacked planes being used for suicide attacks.
August 2001: Moussaoui’s Arrest and its Implications
Real Event from History:
In Minnesota, Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen of Moroccan descent, enrolls in a flight school, raising suspicions almost immediately. His instructors are alarmed by his lack of basic flying skills combined with his keen interest in learning how to steer large aircraft, but not how to take off or land. Furthermore, Moussaoui raises eyebrows by asking detailed questions about cockpit security and alarm systems. When he pays his tuition in cash and expresses a desire to learn to fly jumbo jets despite having no pilot’s license, the school contacts the FBI. Moussaoui is detained on immigration charges.
Hypothetical Gore Response:
The CAG, already on high alert due to the Phoenix memo and other intelligence, takes special interest in his arrest. Interrogations and investigations reveal Moussaoui’s links to radical jihadist groups. His belongings, including flight manuals and notes, hint at a larger, impending plot.
Late August 2001: Acting on Crucial Intelligence
Real Event from History:
The President’s Daily Brief, a top-secret document presented to the highest echelons of the U.S. government, includes a memo with the stark title: “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US.” The memo, based on intelligence gathered over months, indicates that Osama bin Laden had desired to conduct terrorist strikes in the U.S. for years. It references patterns of suspicious activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks. The memo also highlights that bin Laden had recently told his followers he wanted to retaliate against the U.S. for missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998. While the document does not provide specifics about the time, place, or method of a potential attack, its urgency is palpable.
Hypothetical Gore Response:
President Gore, recognizing the gravity of the situation, convenes an emergency meeting at Camp David with top security and intelligence officials. They decide to increase surveillance on suspected individuals, enhance security at major transportation hubs, landmarks, and government buildings, and work more closely with international intelligence agencies.
September 11, 2001: A Day of Vigilance
Thanks to the proactive measures taken by the Gore administration in our hypothetical scenario, the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies are on high alert as September 11th dawns. At airports across the East Coast, enhanced security measures are in place. As the would-be hijackers begin to check in for their flights, a combination of watchlist hits, behavioral detection, and heightened screening protocols lead to several of them being pulled aside for further questioning.
At Boston’s Logan Airport, two of the men set to board American Airlines Flight 11 are detained after their names trigger alerts in the system, a result of the intensified intelligence sharing in the weeks prior. Meanwhile, on United Airlines Flight 175, a vigilant flight attendant, drawing upon what she learned in the recently implemented CAG terrorism courses, raises concerns about a suspicious conversation taking place between several passengers seated near the front of the plane. Just moments before, she had overheard one of them making a brief and cryptic phone call, later identified as a call to Mohamed Atta on Flight 11. Sensing the urgency, the flight crew decides to delay takeoff and return to the gate, and the individuals in question are removed from the plane for further investigation. At Washington Dulles International Airport, a suspicious item in a carry-on bag of one of the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77 leads to a more thorough search and subsequent detentions. Simultaneously, at Newark Liberty International Airport, a ticket agent, newly trained to detect signs of suspicious behavior, denies boarding to two individuals with tickets for United Airlines Flight 93 after they provide erratic responses to routine questions.
The Counterterrorism Action Group’s (CAG) inter-agency reporting systems, designed for rapid response and information sharing, ensure that high-level law enforcement and intelligence officials are immediately notified of these incidents. The swift communication allows for a coordinated response, ensuring that all relevant agencies are on the same page and able to act quickly to neutralize the threat.
By mid-morning, with multiple suspects in custody and ongoing investigations into their intentions, it becomes clear that a major coordinated attack has been averted. The nation, while initially unaware of the magnitude of the threat, would soon come to realize the significance of the day’s events and the importance of vigilance and preparedness.
Aftermath: A Nation Grateful, Yet Reflective
News of the thwarted attacks gradually leaks to the public. There’s a palpable sense of relief, but also introspection. Town hall meetings, televised debates, and op-eds discuss the balance between security and civil liberties. President Gore’s approval ratings soar, but he remains cautious, emphasizing the need for continued vigilance. Internationally, the U.S. strengthens its diplomatic ties, focusing on intelligence-sharing and joint counterterrorism operations, eschewing unilateral military actions.
As the end of 2001 arrives, New Year’s Eve revelers in New York City are comforted by the familiar sight of the World Trade Center towers, now just one year away from their 30th anniversary, as they remain the tallest of the steel skyscrapers dotting the Manhattan skyline.
Epilogue: The Imperative of Informed Leadership
In the intricate tapestry of history, leadership stands out as a defining thread, shaping the contours of nations, the fate of peoples, and the course of global events. The hypothetical yet fact-based scenario of a Gore-led response to the looming threat of 9/11 underscores the profound impact that informed and proactive leadership can have on the trajectory of crises. Leaders equipped with knowledge, experience, and the wisdom to act decisively can be the bulwark against calamities, turning potential tragedies into stories of resilience and foresight.
But leadership is not just about individual prowess; it’s about fostering collaboration, ensuring seamless communication across agencies, and always being attuned to the lessons of the past. As the world continues to grapple with multifaceted challenges, from terrorism to pandemics, the importance of strong and informed leadership remains paramount. It serves as a reminder that the choices of those at the helm can echo through generations, underscoring the timeless adage: those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
