Iraq War Expansion

[dualshock71]

In OTL, America declared war on Iraq with a few allies along for the ride. Aside from a few initial flops, the Bush administration convinces the country to fight against Iraq. However, in one live interview, Bush publicly proclaims a "crusade" against the "Muslim forces of Iraq, which pose a direct threat to our nation with their multiple Weapons of Mass Destruction". As is their norm, Bush supporters across the country take this as a call to oppose Islam in general. They begin to spread their ideas to the frightened population, leading to wide-spread hatred of Muslims. There is rioting on the streets, anti-Muslim pogroms, and any who try to speak out for the innocent Muslims are shouted down, even occasionally attacked.

The "crusade" draws ire from many Middle-Eastern nations, which publicly pledge to fight the United States and any of its allies should they "bring this madness onto our soil". They also begin to refuse the sale of oil to America, incensing its citizens further. Across the world, several nations criticize actions in America. UN weapons inspectors repeatedly visit Iraq in a desperate attempt to stop an oncoming war. Despite their many visits and almost conclusive evidence, Bush declares that "negotiations have failed" and, after abruptly informing UN weapon inspectors to pull out, declares war on Iraq along with his "Coalition of the Willing" (greatly reduced from our timeline due to greater opposition, though still enough, according to US generals, to crush the Iraqi army).

In the Middle East, while the invasion preparations are being made in the Coalition nations, a rare display of unity is taking place as most Middle Eastern leaders band together against the perceived threat of the United States. The leaders of the Coalition army have yet to realize the wide-spread opposition, and attempt to land their troops in Kuwait as per the plan. The first wave of soldiers, officially considered an invading army, is gunned down shortly after they land. Several other Coalition troop ships are destroyed during the retreat. Poland, Denmark, and Australia removed themselves from the Coalition, the US and most of the UK army (whose nation has begun to oppose the war following the failed Kuwait invasion) stationed their remaining troops in Israel, one of the last nations considered "friendly" in the region. The United States, unlike its ally, announces that it still intends to fight again the CMN (Coalition of Mid-Eastern Nations). The majority of the worlds nations wash their hands of the matter, and the two armies prepare to fight again. Thus begins the Middle Eastern War.


I searched for this one, but I couldn't find it, and I'm not so good an alternate history writer as to continue it. Up to this point thought, what do you think? Plausible?

 

[ThomasG]

Whoa! Slow down a second and flesh out paragraph three for clarity.

 

[carlton_bach]

Sounds scarily like someone got into the good Doctor's supply of stupid pills.

I don't think this is terribly plausible. Saddam was only slightly more popular with most Middle Easterners than Bush, most average Americans are not homicidally inclined or riot-happy, and I can't see any currently allied middle eastern country turning away from the USA with less than its survival at stake.

 

[Jozon]

This is ridiculous.

Bush isn't stupid enough to proclaim a crusade against Islam, Middle-Eastern leaders aren't stupid enough to ally with Saddam when the US, UK and various other militarily strong countries (Italy, Australia, Spain, etc...) are about to fight him, there is no way that even a unified Middle-Eastern military would destroy the Coalition amphibious force (let alone destroy ships nearly all their ships), etc...

 

[carlton_bach]

Bush isn't stupid enough to proclaim a crusade against Islam, Middle-Eastern leaders aren't stupid enough to ally with Saddam when the US, UK and various other militarily strong countries (Italy, Australia, Spain, etc...) are about to fight him, there is no way that even a unified Middle-Eastern military would destroy the Coalition amphibious force (let alone destroy ships nearly all their ships), etc...

I would agree to all of that except - well - he *did* proclaim a Crusade. Not against Islam, but seriously, who else is an crusade going to be against?

 

[MerryPrankster]

Bush isn't stupid enough to proclaim a crusade against Islam, Middle-Eastern leaders aren't stupid enough to ally with Saddam when the US, UK and various other militarily strong countries (Italy, Australia, Spain, etc...) are about to fight him, there is no way that even a unified Middle-Eastern military would destroy the Coalition amphibious force (let alone destroy ships nearly all their ships), etc...

If all the Middle Eastern nations allied against the United States, I wouldn't want to be one of the Coalition troops in the area.

Supply lines cut, greatly outnumbered, and the Saudi and Egyptians have modern armored and air forces thanks to American largesse. Plus the Iranians' masses of ship-killer missiles and nasty little boats could make things VERY unpleasant for the fleet there.

 

[Jozon]

I would agree to all of that except - well - he *did* proclaim a Crusade. Not against Islam, but seriously, who else is an crusade going to be against?

Still, he did not explicitly proclaim a crusade against Islam. Besides, I interpreted (and I'm pretty sure that's the way it was intended) as an ideological war.

If all the Middle Eastern nations allied against the United States, I wouldn't want to be one of the Coalition troops in the area.

Supply lines cut, greatly outnumbered, and the Saudi and Egyptians have modern armored and air forces thanks to American largesse. Plus the Iranians' masses of ship-killer missiles and nasty little boats could make things VERY unpleasant for the fleet there.

Still, the fact that the invasion force did land means that a lot of those enemies will have been pummeled into scorpion-shit already. It's not like those troops are going to land blind.

 

[carlton_bach]

Still, he did not explicitly proclaim a crusade against Islam. Besides, I interpreted (and I'm pretty sure that's the way it was intended) as an ideological war.

Well, yes, but that works the same way 'jihad' can mean 'concerted effort'. I'm not sure how the world would take it if the majlis declared they needed to intensify the jihad against false beliefs and proselytisers.

 

[strangeland]

If Bush had actually declared a crusade against Islam, there's no way ANY European powers would have jumped on board, not even Britain.

This would certainly lead to catastrophic defeat, which would result in Bush's loss in the 2004 election. American voters don't reward failure. See 1980.

 

[CalBear]

In OTL, America declared war on Iraq with a few allies along for the ride. Aside from a few initial flops, the Bush administration convinces the country to fight against Iraq. However, in one live interview, Bush publicly proclaims a "crusade" against the "Muslim forces of Iraq, which pose a direct threat to our nation with their multiple Weapons of Mass Destruction". As is their norm, Bush supporters across the country take this as a call to oppose Islam in general. They begin to spread their ideas to the frightened population, leading to wide-spread hatred of Muslims. There is rioting on the streets, anti-Muslim pogroms, and any who try to speak out for the innocent Muslims are shouted down, even occasionally attacked.

The "crusade" draws ire from many Middle-Eastern nations, which publicly pledge to fight the United States and any of its allies should they "bring this madness onto our soil". They also begin to refuse the sale of oil to America, incensing its citizens further. Across the world, several nations criticize actions in America. UN weapons inspectors repeatedly visit Iraq in a desperate attempt to stop an oncoming war. Despite their many visits and almost conclusive evidence, Bush declares that "negotiations have failed" and, after abruptly informing UN weapon inspectors to pull out, declares war on Iraq along with his "Coalition of the Willing" (greatly reduced from our timeline due to greater opposition, though still enough, according to US generals, to crush the Iraqi army).

In the Middle East, while the invasion preparations are being made in the Coalition nations, a rare display of unity is taking place as most Middle Eastern leaders band together against the perceived threat of the United States. The leaders of the Coalition army have yet to realize the wide-spread opposition, and attempt to land their troops in Kuwait as per the plan. The first wave of soldiers, officially considered an invading army, is gunned down shortly after they land. Several other Coalition troop ships are destroyed during the retreat. Poland, Denmark, and Australia removed themselves from the Coalition, the US and most of the UK army (whose nation has begun to oppose the war following the failed Kuwait invasion) stationed their remaining troops in Israel, one of the last nations considered "friendly" in the region. The United States, unlike its ally, announces that it still intends to fight again the CMN (Coalition of Mid-Eastern Nations). The majority of the worlds nations wash their hands of the matter, and the two armies prepare to fight again. Thus begins the Middle Eastern War.


I searched for this one, but I couldn't find it, and I'm not so good an alternate history writer as to continue it. Up to this point thought, what do you think? Plausible?

Plausible? Not in the least. An ASB scenario.

I won't go into great depth why, but just as one example: The U.S. forces IN THEATER before the 2003 invasion were more than sufficient to inflict a crushing military defeat on the combined militaries of the region. Just the FIVE CBG's in the region would have been enough to lay waste to every military force between Suez and Kashmir. When you include U.S. forces on NATO bases in the Med, and the RAF units within strike range, it is an epic over match.

It may be that you have mis-read the low intensity conflict results of the last 4.5 years of Iraqi occupation as the ability of the U.S. & UK military. It is not, in actuality, at all representative of the ability of these forces in major combat. I would recommend a review of the 1991 Gulf War for a reasonable model for this scenario's outcome.

BTW: You couldn't get all the Islamic middle eastern states to agree on the day of the week, much less draw them into a cohesive military alliance.

 

[CalBear]

If Bush had actually declared a crusade against Islam, there's no way ANY European powers would have jumped on board, not even Britain.

This would certainly lead to catastrophic defeat, which would result in Bush's loss in the 2004 election. American voters don't reward failure. See 1980.

Totally agree with part 1. Absolutely disagree with the first clause of part 2.

 

[CalBear]

If all the Middle Eastern nations allied against the United States, I wouldn't want to be one of the Coalition troops in the area.

Supply lines cut, greatly outnumbered, and the Saudi and Egyptians have modern armored and air forces thanks to American largesse. Plus the Iranians' masses of ship-killer missiles and nasty little boats could make things VERY unpleasant for the fleet there.

I wouldn't either. Burying masses of bodies, especially when they have been exposed to the heat for a few days, is a REALLY crappy job.

It might be useful to note that the only way for Egyptian force to access the Arabian Peninsula is A) through Israel (a poor choice) or B) by Sea (an even worse choice against the USN.

 

[AJNolte]

In OTL, America declared war on Iraq with a few allies along for the ride. Aside from a few initial flops, the Bush administration convinces the country to fight against Iraq. However, in one live interview, Bush publicly proclaims a "crusade" against the "Muslim forces of Iraq, which pose a direct threat to our nation with their multiple Weapons of Mass Destruction". As is their norm, Bush supporters across the country take this as a call to oppose Islam in general. They begin to spread their ideas to the frightened population, leading to wide-spread hatred of Muslims. There is rioting on the streets, anti-Muslim pogroms, and any who try to speak out for the innocent Muslims are shouted down, even occasionally attacked.

The "crusade" draws ire from many Middle-Eastern nations, which publicly pledge to fight the United States and any of its allies should they "bring this madness onto our soil". They also begin to refuse the sale of oil to America, incensing its citizens further. Across the world, several nations criticize actions in America. UN weapons inspectors repeatedly visit Iraq in a desperate attempt to stop an oncoming war. Despite their many visits and almost conclusive evidence, Bush declares that "negotiations have failed" and, after abruptly informing UN weapon inspectors to pull out, declares war on Iraq along with his "Coalition of the Willing" (greatly reduced from our timeline due to greater opposition, though still enough, according to US generals, to crush the Iraqi army).

In the Middle East, while the invasion preparations are being made in the Coalition nations, a rare display of unity is taking place as most Middle Eastern leaders band together against the perceived threat of the United States. The leaders of the Coalition army have yet to realize the wide-spread opposition, and attempt to land their troops in Kuwait as per the plan. The first wave of soldiers, officially considered an invading army, is gunned down shortly after they land. Several other Coalition troop ships are destroyed during the retreat. Poland, Denmark, and Australia removed themselves from the Coalition, the US and most of the UK army (whose nation has begun to oppose the war following the failed Kuwait invasion) stationed their remaining troops in Israel, one of the last nations considered "friendly" in the region. The United States, unlike its ally, announces that it still intends to fight again the CMN (Coalition of Mid-Eastern Nations). The majority of the worlds nations wash their hands of the matter, and the two armies prepare to fight again. Thus begins the Middle Eastern War.


I searched for this one, but I couldn't find it, and I'm not so good an alternate history writer as to continue it. Up to this point thought, what do you think? Plausible?

No. D you want the short version as to why not? Well, here goes:
1. Uh, Bush can't call a crusade. That has to be done by that guy with the funny hat in Rome...what's his name... The pope? Or at least someone in the church.
2. So, the average Bush supporter is going to here the word "crusade" and blow up a mosque? That's as ludicrous as the idea that the average Obama supporter will here the word "revolution" in an Obama speach and, say, try to blow up the pentagon (Bill Ayers anyone? Anyone? Ah never mind).
3. So, the Middle East is going to unite to fight off the crusaders, just like they did with the original First Crusade right? Err, wait a minute, they didn't unite then. And I'd guess they won't now. National interest would dictate otherwise. Unless the fact that President Bush mentions the word "crusade" in a speach somehow causes a historically unprecedented surge of Arab (let alone Muslim) unity in the region which topples all governments in it's waik and brings about a Caliphate. Look: the Arab street already thought OIF was a crusade. Note how governments failed to immediately line up behind Saddam or fall. Let me just riff on this theme a little longer. Iran is Shiah and Persian. Saudi rabia is extraordinarily conservative Sunni Muslim, and Arab. Turkey's secularists through a massive tizzy when the AKP said they might kinda maybe want Islam to be a part of the government just a little bit (not sayin' that's good or bad just that it happened). So, let's assume that dubyah is actually stupid enough to utter the word "crusade" whilst talking about Iraq, and compounds this idiocy by mmbling the word "Muslim" in the same sentence. Is this really, honestly going to get these disparate groups who hate each other like poison to not only sing kumbayah but pool their resources against the largest military in the world, whose defense budget is probably multiples of ten greater than that of all these nations combined?

Um, no.

Oh, and why the hell is Israel an "ally" of the crusade? I think they'll maybe remember that a whole lot of Jews got killed last time don't you?

By the freaking way: we have, and had before the war, permanent bases in Iraq, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. So I think the people rioting in the street/governments falling in waves because Bush said "crusade" might just tip off those good folks in CentCom that something maybe changed here.

Ontop of all this, I find the claim that biggotry is the default position of Bush supporters and the inane comparison of said supporters to the Tsarist pograms offensive in the extreme. Could you imagine someone claiming on this board that Liberal Democrats would conduct "pograms" against Evangelical Christians (against whom select secularist liberals have said things at least as nasty as some few nativist conservatives comments about Islam) and not being banned? I supported the war from he beginning, still do, and voted for Bush despite some disagreements here and there. Because of my Christian faith I think that certain truth claims made by Islam are false, and I find the lack of religious freedom in specific Muslim countries (EG Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) troubling. I also always have been and will always remain a defender of universal religious freedom both at home and abroad. The idea that I would in any way condone, let alone support or actively take part in the kind of anti-Muslim pogram you describe just because a political leader I support said the word "crusade" is almost too absurdly laughable to be offensive.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I wouldn't either. Burying masses of bodies, especially when they have been exposed to the heat for a few days, is a REALLY crappy job.

It might be useful to note that the only way for Egyptian force to access the Arabian Peninsula is A) through Israel (a poor choice) or B) by Sea (an even worse choice against the USN.

Turkey is also an Islamic country. Iran + Turkey + Iraq = problems. Not that that would happen, but you seem to think we could somehow launch an amphibious invasion (which it would be if the entire Islamic world was allied against us) that would succeed against all that. Not likely.

 

[AJNolte]

Well, yes, but that works the same way 'jihad' can mean 'concerted effort'. I'm not sure how the world would take it if the majlis declared they needed to intensify the jihad against false beliefs and proselytisers.

you have to keep in mind the historical litracy of the average American. Depressing as it is, most people probably think "Billy Graham" when they here crusade, not "deus volt" and Pope Urban.

I'm no scholar of slam, so I don't feel qualified to say who's got the right interpretation of "Jihad. However, I can unequivocally say that I hope the "inner struggle" definition wins the argument and that the "Billy graham" definition of crusade does as well. Religious wars are usually bad, not least for the religions involved.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

you have to keep in mind the historical litracy of the average American. Depressing as it is, most people probably think "Billy Graham" when they here crusade, not "deus volt" and Pope Urban.

I'm no scholar of slam, so I don't feel qualified to say who's got the right interpretation of "Jihad. However, I can unequivocally say that I hope the "inner struggle" definition wins the argument and that the "Billy graham" definition of crusade does as well. Religious wars are usually bad, not least for the religions involved.

There are two kinds of Jihad - Lesser Jihad and Greater Jihad. Greater Jihad is the inner struggle, Lesser Jihad is a defensive military struggle.

 

[AJNolte]

Turkey is also an Islamic country. Iran + Turkey + Iraq = problems. Not that that would happen, but you seem to think we could somehow launch an amphibious invasion (which it would be if the entire Islamic world was allied against us) that would succeed against all that. Not likely.

Alright, assume the head-scratchingly implausible Turko-Iraqi-Iranian alliance...
Almost had to stop writing there, am now continuing: yes, there could be problems, but really only if everyone else just let the Turks do their fighting for them. The Turks are the only one of these three forces which is comparable to a Western military in training, discipline and equipment. Thy would unquestionably give us a run for our money if we ended up fighting them for some weird reason, particularly if their allies were any good. In this scenario, they aren't. The average Iraqi soldier had 6 rounds to train with per year. Yes, I said 6. It takes 30 rounds (approximately from what I'm told) to zero your weapon. The Iraqi republican guard had 12 rounds per year for training purposes on average. Yes, Iran will fair beter than Iraq, but they haven't been battle-tested since Iran-Iraq and their equipment is really kind of a mishmash. Just think about a Turko-Iranian war (IMO far more plausible than this nonsense though maybe not likely). Turks in, what, two weeks? Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Iran and the Saudis all put together would, if they could somehow get their forces together, cause a problem. And of course, in this (I hasten to reemphasize) ludicrous scenario, anything post-war would be almost impossible (IRGC and other units of the Iranian military are really good at training insurgents).

 

[AJNolte]

There are two kinds of Jihad - Lesser Jihad and Greater Jihad. Greater Jihad is the inner struggle, Lesser Jihad is a defensive military struggle.

A question which is O/T: are there specific qualifications for what is and what is not fit to be called a "lesser Jihad" in Islamic law? I've heard that such qualifications do exist but haven't been able to find them listed. This might be something akin to just war theory in the Christian tradition, which does include these qualifications, and would be an interesting comparative study for a political theorist...

 

[Firestorm]

I would suggest adding neo-czarist Russia into the mix, maybe bringing some of Eastern Europe. After all, the Slavs are almost as tyrannical and bloodthirsty as American Republicans. To address AJNoltes first point, perhaps we could have Herr Popenfuher jump in on the crusade, leading to fascist governments being re-established in countries like Spain, Italy and the Philippines. Might also help placate folks like Pat Buchanan, who might otherwise be anti-war.

*re-engages brain*Sweet mother of God, this one's almost as bad as Domestic 9/11.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

A question which is O/T: are there specific qualifications for what is and what is not fit to be called a "lesser Jihad" in Islamic law? I've heard that such qualifications do exist but haven't been able to find them listed. This might be something akin to just war theory in the Christian tradition, which does include these qualifications, and would be an interesting comparative study for a political theorist...

Qualifications vary from branch to branch, place to place, and time to time.

In very general terms, it's a "justifiable" war. For instance, resulting as usual to Ottoman examples, calling a Jihad in 1877 against the (unprovoked) Russian invasion was pretty successful, in that Muslims worldwide provided support (although mostly sympathy), whereas the Jihad in 1914 wasn't - alliance with a non-Muslim power engaging in an aggressive war didn't cut it.

If the US were Muslim, Afghanistan probably would have counted as a Jihad, but not Iraq.

Radicals might excuse civilian deaths as legitimate because they are viewed as collaborators, but even medieval Islam was very specific about prohibitions on harming non-combatants.