More American Iraq/Afghanistan style invasions and occupations?

[MrNumbahOne]

Saw a pretty bad film with an interesting premise: the US ends up invading a lot more countries post-9/11 to the point where the draft is brought back. So my question is how could this be done? In the film, more successful 9/11-esque attacks are successfully performed, making the US government more war-hungry, resulting in the invasions. Is this plausible? Perhaps if the terrorist organizations were from different countries?

My next question is who would be the plausible targets? Would it be restricted to only Muslim-majority states? And how would all the invasions and occupations go, individually and overall?

Thank you.

 

[bsmart]

I can't see anyway the draft would be brought back. There is no political will to do it, the Military doesn't want it, and I don't think the public would stand for it.

 

[Qhapaq Inka]

Which countries were invaded/occupied in this film?

A question I asked a while ago was what would have happened if *9/11 was carried out when Bin Laden and co were still in Sudan - would the invasion and occupation of that country gone smoother than Afghanistan, or not?

Depending on the sources of attacks, you could maybe have multiple US interventions in northeast/east Africa, and, if an attack were particularly horrible, the US might risk going after Pakistan.

 

[MrNumbahOne]

Which countries were invaded/occupied in this film?

A question I asked a while ago was what would have happened if *9/11 was carried out when Bin Laden and co were still in Sudan - would the invasion and occupation of that country gone smoother than Afghanistan, or not?

Depending on the sources of attacks, you could maybe have multiple US interventions in northeast/east Africa, and, if an attack were particularly horrible, the US might risk going after Pakistan.

It was quite a while ago, I don't remember. It was called Day Zero, and it focused on the effect the draft was having on the characters, so I don't think too much attention was paid to plausibility. I distinctly remember "sent to Cairo" though. It was made to sound like it was a regional thing.

Could one POD be that after the first invasion goes well, the combination of this success and desire for war causes the government to overestimate their capabilities in invading and occupying, thus giving them more inclination to do so?

 

[Qhapaq Inka]

Could one POD be that after the first invasion goes well, the combination of this success and desire for war causes the government to overestimate their capabilities in invading and occupying, thus giving them more inclination to do so?

I guess potentially, but the consensus I've seen on this board about a US draft after Vietnam is that the military itself is against it, as it lowers the quality of troops substantially.

I assume it would take a dire national emergency to force the use of a draft, something like another country successfully invading the US mainland.

 

[MrNumbahOne]

I guess potentially, but the consensus I've seen on this board about a US draft after Vietnam is that the military itself is against it, as it lowers the quality of troops substantially.

I assume it would take a dire national emergency to force the use of a draft, something like another country successfully invading the US mainland.

I'm focused on the potential invasions, not the draft.

But regarding it, a fear is that the US military would be stretched too thin to adequately defend the homeland and complete the mission. Not sure how plausible it is, but that was what I heard.

 

[snerfuplz]

From my understanding Rumsfield and Wolfowitz viewed military intervention as the most effective tool for spreading democracy in the Middle East. A more successful Iraq could lead to military action, perhaps not invasion but something like a bombing campaign, in Syria, Sudan, maybe Iran.

 

[CrimsonKing]

Saw a pretty bad film with an interesting premise: the US ends up invading a lot more countries post-9/11 to the point where the draft is brought back. So my question is how could this be done? In the film, more successful 9/11-esque attacks are successfully performed, making the US government more war-hungry, resulting in the invasions. Is this plausible? Perhaps if the terrorist organizations were from different countries?

If we accept the premise that there are many 9/11 scale attacks (which is what strikes me as the implausible part) than I regret to say that it is plausible enough.

My next question is who would be the plausible targets? Would it be restricted to only Muslim-majority states?

It probably would be restricted to Muslim-majority states unless the attacks were proven to emanate from a specific place which wasn't.

And how would all the invasions and occupations go, individually and overall?

Like all the other useless counterinsurgency wars the US has ever fought, total disasters from beginning to end, and a colossal waste of time, lives, and resources.

But regarding it, a fear is that the US military would be stretched too thin to adequately defend the homeland and complete the mission. Not sure how plausible it is, but that was what I heard.

As much as I dislike the idea of such wars, that specific fear is wrong. The possession of a large arsenal of nuclear weapons and ICBMs makes the US homeland immune to any and all invasion.

 

[Qhapaq Inka]

I'm focused on the potential invasions, not the draft.

But regarding it, a fear is that the US military would be stretched too thin to adequately defend the homeland and complete the mission. Not sure how plausible it is, but that was what I heard.

Sorry, I think I made a mental jump that didn't transfer to my writing

If there are multiple interventions in which the vast majority of the armed forces are engaged overseas, I could see a sort of "lite draft" to the National Guard to make sure there are enough active units at home.

As for the interventions, it would definitely depend on the success of the first one(s), both initially and over time. As we've seen in OTL, the US public's appetite for extended warfare abroad is not very high, unless the threat from abroad is perceived as extremely dire (e.g. Axis, but a more successful, prolific, and brutal Al-Qaeda could also fit the bill).

 

[jmc247]

From my understanding Rumsfield and Wolfowitz viewed military intervention as the most effective tool for spreading democracy in the Middle East. A more successful Iraq could lead to military action, perhaps not invasion but something like a bombing campaign, in Syria, Sudan, maybe Iran.

Rumsfeld didn't believe in the concept of Arab democracy and still doesn't. He was never a neocon in the sense you are thinking of, he was a hard power, America should crush its enemies and put in a strong man kind of guy.

Now Wolfowitz was a neocon.

Too many cooks in the kitchen in the Bush White House, yes there were neocons, but Rumsfeld was a 50s style hard power conservative. So, was Cheney, but on military affairs Cheney was much more competent and would have done far better managing the war as SoD again then Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld also became addicted to this concept of high tech, drones and SF replacing a heavy ground presence.

 

[Napoleon IV]

I'm focused on the potential invasions, not the draft.

But regarding it, a fear is that the US military would be stretched too thin to adequately defend the homeland and complete the mission. Not sure how plausible it is, but that was what I heard.

Barring WWIII the draft isn't coming back. In October 2003 (so shortly after the invasion of Iraq) 80% of Americans opposed bringing back the draft, and that number has stayed around there ever since. No policy opposed by 80% of people is going to pass. Furthermore the military is against the draft. Draftees tend to be less reliable and motivated, and the military doesn't have the resources to train a flood of new recruits.

If the military is stretched too thin either the government will pull back or just accept being too stretched out.

 

[MrNumbahOne]

If we accept the premise that there are many 9/11 scale attacks (which is what strikes me as the implausible part) than I regret to say that it is plausible enough.

Actually, would a much worse 9/11 be enough to get it rolling?

And I'm very curious as to who the targets could be, or does it depend solely on the scenario in the first place?

 

[jmc247]

Barring WWIII the draft isn't coming back. In October 2003 (so shortly after the invasion of Iraq) 80% of Americans opposed bringing back the draft, and that number has stayed around there ever since. No policy opposed by 80% of people is going to pass. Furthermore the military is against the draft. Draftees tend to be less reliable and motivated, and the military doesn't have the resources to train a flood of new recruits.

If the military is stretched too thin either the government will pull back or just accept being too stretched out.

The draft was only passable in the week or so after 911. Two years later not so much.

 

[Qhapaq Inka]

The draft was only passable in the week or so after 911.

Lord, you think 9/11 conspiracy theories are bad now, imagine what they'd be in this scenario.

 

[jmc247]

Lord, you think 9/11 conspiracy theories are bad now, imagine what they'd be in this scenario.

Not really, the public at large turned against the war because they grew 'war weary' or simply got tired of hearing about it and had no idea who or what we were fighting and just stopped caring other then viewing it as a annoyance. They weren't paying higher taxes or sacrificing. The military and their families were bearing the whole burden for the country.

Now if you had a draft the difference is the country would be involved, watching and demanding a faster end by any means of the wars. The positive of a draft is that you have much more public buy in, the double edged sword is they will demand you be seen as making progress.

 

[CrimsonKing]

Actually, would a much worse 9/11 be enough to get it rolling?

I suppose if it's just made bad enough, it might. But realistically, I don't see the specific 9/11 attacks as they happened historically being as worse as is necessary to get invasions on this scale. You could have the fourth plane make it through to Washington, but beyond that, I don't see how to make it worse. Including more than four planes wasn't possible for logistical reasons.

And I'm very curious as to who the targets could be, or does it depend solely on the scenario in the first place?

Assuming there isn't a specific new country which was implicated in the expanded attack(s), my guess would be Sudan, Libya, Syria, possibly Iran. Perhaps others as well, if butterflies result in their governments weakening/collapsing and AQ and associated groups moving in to take advantage of the vacuum, like what happened when the government of Yemen collapsed.

 

[Qhapaq Inka]

Not really, the public at large turned against the war because they grew 'war weary' or simply got tired of hearing about it and had no idea who or what we were fighting and just stopped caring other then viewing it as a annoyance. They weren't paying higher taxes or sacrificing. The military and their families were bearing the whole burden for the country.

Now if you had a draft the difference is the country would be involved, watching and demanding a faster end by any means of the wars. The positive of a draft is that you have much more public buy in, the double edged sword is they will demand you be seen as making progress.

Agreed, but I was referring more to public perceptions of the attacks. The timing of a massive terrorist attack followed immediately by a draft would be seen as highly suspicious by many, including OTL's "Truthers".