FBI agent John O'Neill successfully petitions his superiors with a successful approach.
Files regarding al-Qaeda\u2019s operations are passed up the chain of command.
The FBI and CIA extensively monitor the situation for the previous year.
Intelligence relating to the use of commercial aircraft is confirmed.

On September 9, the CIA received intelligence that Northern Alliance Commander Shah Massoud was killed by an assassin. Agents already collaborating with the FBI sounded alarms thanks to the previous year\u2019s efforts. The CIA became convinced that the attack was beginning. The FBI and CIA, who had been monitoring individuals, used its intelligence to make a flurry of arrests. Terrorists were apprehended along with plenty of people who had no part in the plot.

Back in the US, it is September 10. With a body of evidence pointing toward an attack, the FBI ordered the FAA to stop all flights. Bureaucratic confusion slowed the process, but flights were suspended by the evening. Government officials around the world received many phone calls.

On September 11, the CIA revealed that multiple foreign terrorists had been found and arrested. Shortly after, the FAA informed the American public that air travel had been suspended until further notice. The CIA simply wasn't convinced that all the actors involved in the attack had been arrested and didn't want to take any chances.

National flights had never been suspended before. In such circumstances, it was hard to eliminate leaks. Later in the day, the CIA revealed the broad outline of a terrorist plot to take control of commercial aircraft and steer them toward American landmarks. Unlike the foiled 1992 World Trade Center bombing or even the 2000 Cole bombing, this was too big to keep silent. The public's reaction was one of shocked anger, cautious skepticism, or growing suspicion toward the Bush administration's intentions.

On September 12, the FBI issued a statement confirming the CIA's earlier assessment. Later that day, President Bush issued his own statement, commended field agents, and said "these things don't happen in our America." He informed the public that terrorists of the al-Qaeda transnational terrorist group intended to crash two planes into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon. Whether it was a lack of information or due to operational security involving misdirection, no other targets were named.

Domestically, President Bush enjoyed some bipartisan goodwill, but nothing you'd call overwhelming. In order to satisfy some skepticism, he put forward evidence that supported the administration's claims. Representatives of England's MI5 and Russia's FSB even identified some of those held as confirmed members of al-Qaeda.

Russia, hoping the US would expend blood and treasure, reluctantly acquiesced to the American plan. They believed they could somehow manage American behavior and bolster their intentions of being a regional leader again. Along with many other nations, they openly wondered how long US troops would be in the region. The US assured everyone that the operation would be fast and focused. The public didn't know it, but CIA operatives were already in the Northern Alliance territories of Afghanistan in advance of the Special Forces that would soon arrive.

Three weeks after the foiled attacks, on October 2, the president announced the military plan to eliminate al-Qaeda. The air campaign began the day after. Troops eventually moved into an Afghanistan with little choice in the matter. After Special Forces made contact and paid off a few regional warlords, American troops arrived. Once the American Marines set foot in the country, it was thought that the war would be over in six months.

Taliban. Many in the American public followed the President with reservations, but now they grow weary of the conflict. A newly elected president is worried that a failure here will shape his presidency for the worse. Contrary to the initial claims, the conflict has not been fast nor focused. Our new president urges patience and works to craft a plan.

It is possible that al-Qaeda's plan could have been foiled much earlier or failed entirely without American involvement. Then we might still look upon the group as a low-priority foreign threat. But the mid-to-late 1990's saw American power retreating from Central Asia and domestic political institutions become bogged down. Given the talent, money, and the freedom to move that al-Qaeda enjoyed, some kind of bold attempt would eventually have been executed.

This is why, given my starting variables, military action would still have occurred in Afghanistan. In the following section I will look at what remains the same and what would have changed in this alternative history. It is written from the perspective of someone looking back from 2008 with knowledge ofbo th timelines.

The collapse of the real-estate bubble was not caused by 9/11, but the psychological impact would have hastened it. The economic woes we're experiencing would still have eventually occurred. The US has a generational configuration that views the future with increasing anxiety and pessimism. The perception of failing economies and inflexible institutions would still be with us because we see ourselves in a state of decline.

The conflict in Afghanistan would still be a mess. While the US will have had more time and materials to throw at it, they will still be unable to root out hard-line Taliban members or al-Qaeda. After failing to keep enough warlords loyal, politicians would attempt to reach a settlement by splitting Taliban support. Mission creep would occur and democratization would be the new cause. The US would be criticized for its failure and there would be pressure to find a way out. If Osama bin Laden was captured or killed, it'd be easier to effectively declare victory and begin a draw down. If Osama bin Laden was not captured, there's no such political cover. In either event, the US will still leave the region in chaos.

If Latin America is considered ignored, then it's hard to know what to call South America. Absent any strong encroachment into this region, nothing more than the usual overtures will be made. The US will support a growing role for Brazil as a block against other powers and continue providing the money and guns for Colombia's war against FARC. South America would

There would be little change in the Pacific Rim. China would still be hooked into the American system and there would be fewer statements about human rights violations coming from the US State Department. Japan would continue its downward economic stagger and foreign policy reorientation.

Since there wasn\u2019t the perception of a regional security crisis, there is no war on terror as we know it. However, President Bush may well have still labeled Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as terrorism-supporting states. Without the impending threat of Middle Eastern regimes being toppled, soft power and coalition politics would be used to bring these regimes into line.

There would be no Department of Homeland Security. The FBI and CIA would acquire newfound political capital thanks to the demonstrable success at working together. Even so, structural problems in the intelligence community's organizational relationships would persist.

US plans for greater involvement in Africa would have grown. American soft power would be used to make friends and win diplomatic points. The establishment of AFRICOM would have accelerated and dovetailed nicely with the growing counter- terrorism collaboration in the region. The militaries of US allies would gain support and help shape the development of the region.

This would all culminate, midway into the 2000's, in the US pushing for a UN role in the Darfur crisis. With no Iraqi campaign to act as a drag on morale and resources, the US would have the bandwidth to deal with Darfur. The US administration wouldn't mind the PR coup, either, as the narrative is mostly flattering toward American led forces. But reality