If 911 never happened would US forces be in Iraq or Darfur or neither and why?

Answer 1

The United States would never send their own forces to Darfur... their is no reason, no gain, and no security issue to warrant the United States to risk lives and money there. the genocide going on in the Sudan does not pose a security threat for the US. It's not right or wrong despite the egregious violations of human rights there... its just how the international system works. Countries that don't watch out for their own well-being and security fail and that is just how it is.

You can equate the international system to the Theory of the Firm in economics:

1. As the the currency of a firm is money, the currency of a state is power
2. As the goal of a firm is to maximize their profits, the goal of a state is to maximize power
3. When firms do not focus on maximizing profits, they get beat out by others and fail. The same is with states: If a state does not pursue gains in power, it gets beat out by others an does not survive.

This is a theory on how the international world works and so far, it has been the most accurate way to explain it.

If you make a chart measuring the level of human rights violations on one side and and the amount of foreign intervention on the other and chart various genocides, massacres,and human rights violations, there is no correlation whatsoever. You have dots all over the place.
However, if you compare the level of foreign intervention with the security risk vested in that human rights catastrophe, you have a very linear, very predictable pattern. Their are exceptions, but many of them actually do help prove the rule.

Congratulations! If you read the response this far, then you just received and introductory university level course on Realist theory in International Relations.

As for Iraq, there was a substantial vested security interest there for the United States. Evidence existed that the threatened the national security of the United States and therefore took action. They are ensuring their security and thus surviving.

9/11 was a wake up call for the United States to refocus on their national security. If it had not happened, we may not have had the focus to see the threat in Iraq. The size of that threat is debatable, but we still took preemptive action on a threat. As bad as it sounds, nations don't intervene in human rights catastrophes just to feel good about themselves or to do the right thing. They do it because it is a substantial security risk and threatens their sovereignty. That is the best way to describe it.

Answer 2

I think we would be in Iraq because George Bush would be president even if there wasn't a 9/11 and he wanted to go there to finish up what his father started. I have no opinion about Darfur, because I have never heard of Darfur before.

Answer 3

If the U. S. went to Darfur people could nonetheless placed them down for being there. i'm thinking approximately deposing slimy dictators anyplace they could be, yet we ought to circulate after the wonderful and maximum on the spot threats first. despite if Saddam became a danger is a moot element now. between the main important cutting-edge threats is Iran. regrettably sufficient, a team of tribes in Africa committing genocide on one yet another would not recent an instantaneous danger to our very own existence. Bush easily had to end what the corrupt and nadless UN and all the countries who have been doing company with Iraq did no longer choose his dad to end. 911 became a solid excuse, and that i see no longer something incorrect with that. somebody attacked the towers and somebody had to pay. So sure, i think there could have been a conflict in Iraq inspite of 911, and that i could easily experience an analogous way approximately it. the U. S. is there, so handle it.

Answer 4

hey i'll be glad to answer that. first let me itroduce my self i'm an arabian,actually egyptian muslim girl so i guess my answer would probably be the closest to the truth. anyways ofcourse if 9/11 never happened america will still be in iraq, darfour and who knows maybe in egypt too! let me ask you something as we all know who blew up the wtc? saudi arabiens right? at least that's we know so what does iraq and sudan has to do with?. i'll tell you something if 9/11 never happened america or bush would have absolutly searched for another excuse to take over iraq. the main reason he conquered iraq is for oil we all know that iraq is the richest country in the world when it comes to oil right? and darfur in sudan we arabs always say that this country alone could feed all the arabian countrys as its agriculter is all what this country is about. you see these two countrys are taken not cause america is an angel and wants to make the world better but because bush wants our resources. who knows what excuse might he make to take over egypt maybe cause the sphinx is naughty or cause the pyramids weren't made by the pharoes but israeliens bulit them oh wow. anyways i know you americans are good kind people who aren't blamed for what your president does. your question shows you are smart.....thanks american brother =)

Answer 5

If you understand the neocons' agenda, they would have been in Iraq regardless of 9-11. They would still say Saddam is hiding WMDs, and that we should invade Iraq to remove a dictator. Of course, the goal is to secure Iraq's oil assets. I don't know about Darfur. It's still possible.

Answer 6

Invading Iraq was a plan devised by Clinton and inhereted by Bush. Most likely we would have invaded Iraq. Congress voted 38 reasons to invade Iraq only 1 had to do with 9/11

Answer 7

I think they would because it was planned in September 2000 in a report produced for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and Lewis Libby entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century.

The U.S. must take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein is in power: "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Permanent U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, whether or not Saddam Hussein is in power

Increasing military pressure on China: "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia" which will lead to "American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China"

"The creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US"

Answer 8

They'd probably be in neither of those places. Without 9/11, Bush would never have been able to get the support to invade Iraq or anywhere else.

Answer 9

The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

O'Neill, who served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet, was asked to resign by the White House in December 2002 over differences he had with the president's tax cuts. O'Neill was the main source for "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

Answer 10

With Bush as President, we would have been in Iraq no matter what had happened.

With a Democratic President we would have worked with the UN and allied forces to send Peace Keeping troops into Darfur.