The War of Mexican Intervention? (~1995)

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Actually, That Is the Point...

You still don't understand. Mexicans voted for it. Why? Because they are tied to the US economy. Remember, their military has just been ripped apart, and now foreign nations are gathering in the South. All these political movements you mention are primarily based in the poorer regions of Mexico. Combined with the fact many would be fleeing these pro-US areas to Chiapas, the vote is going to reflect the idea that if these Mexican states are going to have their nation torn apart, they need a guarantee the United States won't completely close its borders to them. Supposing they didn't secede, and Zapatista attacks continue, the nativists are going to get a rebound and they will be screwed, caught between a US that doesn't want to deal with them and a Chiapas that wants to kill them. Obviously not all provinces of Mexico are going to vote to secede into US, but these ones near the border are. The US being a democratic republic, the vote of the people is enough justification for them.

Actually that is the point....Just because a nation falls into a political/economic crisis serves as no justification for annexation. Consider that there are several major reasons it will not happen. First, considering that you have approximately 100,400,650 (2000) people. Consider the fact that you have Chihuahua (c.2,440,000), Sonora (1,822,200), Nuevo Leon (3,098,700), Baja California (1,978,700), and Coahuila (1,971,300). This means that you are proposing the addition of more than 11,309,000 people into the Union, of whom less than 5% know English, have never voted in an American election, have never been subject to U.S. laws.

Just consider that we already have Puerto Rico with 3,828,500 (2000) as a U.S. territory, with over 1/3 of the people you are mentioning as a U.S. territory since 1896, but one of the major stumbling blocks to statehood has been language. Also consider that even in the best case scenario, (e.g. Hawaii) it took 57 years to win approval to gain statehood. As such, statehood movements are dead...Just ask Puerto Rico!!

As for EZLN and the Zapatistas, consider that the population of Chiapas is only 4,244,800 with only 809.592 able to fight with the EZLN. As such, they are certainly limited in their stretch.

 

[Blochead]

The US isn't attempting to justify annexation, so I honestly do not know why you keep saying the US can't justify annexation. It's the Mexican voters who want to move into the US, not the other way around.

Chiapas, while small, is supported by BRIC and is probably not a neighbor a US trading partner would want to have.

Will the statehood movement have massive problems? Absolutely. Congress, can, at a whim, reverse or delay the process. But America isn't going to respond with 'Screw you, why don't you try and run some kind of government while major regional powers wage indiscriminate war within your own border?'. Either way Northern Mexico will be a US client, and its going to look awfully bad for the US PR and US economy if it throws their biggest trading partner back into the arena. Now does this justify annexation? No. But does the people of Mexico voting for it justify it? Certainly. You talk like the US is doing this out of imperialism. It isn't. Really, if the people vote for it, all the rest is footnotes in terms of the ATL's politics.

 

[Blochead]

2002- The US negotiates an uneasy peace with the Republic of Chiapas. There is no demilitarized zone, but the US keeps its forces farther from the borders of the tiny nation. However, warns McCain, if any new military equipment is shipped to Chiapas, the US will begin punitive strikes and a quarantine. Venezuela responds that any action against Chiapas is an action against the Venezuelan state, and MERCOSUR begins discussing the idea of a mutual defense clause to their economic pact. With Argentina in the throes of depression, it seems a leftist leaning candidate is inevitable. Already Hugo Chavez is being hailed by some as the 'Man Who Stood Up To The Superpower', and Venezuela continues its military buildup. The US blocks deals everywhere it can, but falls short of preventing the Chinese and some other nations of pushing their deals through. In retaliation, US diplomats abroad send similar messages. You trade weapons technology with China, and sooner or later they will end up in use against the US. And Colombia responds to its neighbors' armarment purchases with its own military buildup. F-15 and F-16 fighters, new attack helicopters, and more.

But not all nations are content with US hegemony. Along with Venezuela and Argentina, Brazil moves further into the anti-US camp. Lula da Sila, the newly elected Brazilian President, has been campaigning hard left, (and unlike in the OTL) is committed to following it. The EU, where many had touted the democratic votes as grounds for Chiapan independence, still tastes those bitter statements in their mouth while the Mexican states, including Baja California del Sur in the most recent vote, decide to become part of the US.

The initially bright future proposed by eager congressmen doesn't seem to play out as it was expected to. With a midterm election coming up, and knowing the slightest stain of legislative failure will taint their careers, the Southern Ordinance is amended. The minimal integration time is quadrupled, and all Mexican citizens will have to be fully naturalized and will not be given a 'free ticket' in. But on the economic front, the slump Mexico has seen since the beginning of the rebellion is starting to slow. With US companies now paying the full minimum wage or more, a Mexican middle class is slowly arising. Though they are not as well paid as their American counterparts, they are a distinct departure from the usual 'sweatshop outsourcers' American companies are portrayed as. This new class, as it integrates, will be a deciding force in the internal votes, one that keeps the Mexican territories on a strong path to US integration, territorial or otherwise.

In the US itself, Latin culture starts to make a comeback after being pummeled by nativist propaganda. Latin Americans, who will soon be the largest minority in the US, try to celebrate their culture without the politics of the Chicano movement. American military technology starts to take a new shape as well. The Rapid Deployment Force concept seems to get a thorough workthrough in Mexico, where the RPG becomes a symbol of Congressional inadequacy. McCain urges Congress to approve new types of anti-RPG and improved armor for the 2003 budget. An interesting survivor of the fray is the M1 Abrams, which proves to be quite effective in central Mexico. With the heaviest armor availible and new anti-personnel canister rounds, many step back from a 'The MBT is Dead' policy. The US defense budget shows no signs of slowing down with the possiblity of a conventional war in the near future.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

The US isn't attempting to justify annexation, so I honestly do not know why you keep saying the US can't justify annexation. It's the Mexican voters who want to move into the US, not the other way around.

Chiapas, while small, is supported by BRIC and is probably not a neighbor a US trading partner would want to have.

Will the statehood movement have massive problems? Absolutely. Congress, can, at a whim, reverse or delay the process. But America isn't going to respond with 'Screw you, why don't you try and run some kind of government while major regional powers wage indiscriminate war within your own border?'. Either way Northern Mexico will be a US client, and its going to look awfully bad for the US PR and US economy if it throws their biggest trading partner back into the arena. Now does this justify annexation? No. But does the people of Mexico voting for it justify it? Certainly. You talk like the US is doing this out of imperialism. It isn't. Really, if the people vote for it, all the rest is footnotes in terms of the ATL's politics.

Actually, the "Screw You!!why don't you try and run some kind of government while major regional powers wage indiscriminate war within your own border?", would be more realistic. First of, consider that the people of the region would certainly not vote for U.S. statehood especially after they have constantly complained about being,"too Americanized..."

See (CNN-TV/FortuneMagazine) (2/19/2004):

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/02/19/fortune.ff.globalization/

Also consider the testimony of General James T. Hill, U.S. Southern Command, before the House of Representatives, (3/24/2004) wherein he points out that American military intervention into Latin America has emboldened resistance and has encouraged anti-American sentiment:

http://www.wola.org/security/posture_statement_southcom_2004.htm

This danger is further emphasized and pointed out in a recent study on Latin American affairs from the University of New Mexico:

http://laii.unm.edu/solas/noticias/lasnoticias-display?solas_id=135

As such,Northern Mexico becoming a separate country and/or a series of American states will not happen.

 

[Blochead]

The primary difference being that those warnings are already a reality. The US no longer has the option of appeasing the anti-American nations. I am very aware of the kind of response such actions would have on the Latin American community. That is why Brazil and Argentina are about to join the anti-American fold.

But right now, the old Mexican government has abseloutely zero pull and zero power. When you're a Mexican citizen and you're faced between a choice of economic interests and your culture, a lot are going to choose their pesos or dollars. That's why immigrants move to the US. While Mexicans do value their culture, they also have had a taste of the increases in standards of living from NAFTA. A majority of them would like good relations with the US, and would like to maintain a trading partnership. If the Mexican government cannot stably function, those Mexicans aren't going to see any improvements in their standard of living anytime soon. Likewise, US politicians who fall in the pocket of lobbyists with Mexican interests don't want to see Mexico go to the wolves either. Is it the most ideologically correct scenario? No. Is it the most realistic scenario? Maybe not. But when you get stuck in a cloud of butterflies its hard to determine exactly how the pieces will fall. When you have to make the choice between Americanization and starvation, the states in Mexico that see beneficial effects of US trade aren't gonna want to starve.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

The Problem...

The primary difference being that those warnings are already a reality. The US no longer has the option of appeasing the anti-American nations. I am very aware of the kind of response such actions would have on the Latin American community. That is why Brazil and Argentina are about to join the anti-American fold.

But right now, the old Mexican government has abseloutely zero pull and zero power. When you're a Mexican citizen and you're faced between a choice of economic interests and your culture, a lot are going to choose their pesos or dollars. That's why immigrants move to the US. While Mexicans do value their culture, they also have had a taste of the increases in standards of living from NAFTA. A majority of them would like good relations with the US, and would like to maintain a trading partnership. If the Mexican government cannot stably function, those Mexicans aren't going to see any improvements in their standard of living anytime soon. Likewise, US politicians who fall in the pocket of lobbyists with Mexican interests don't want to see Mexico go to the wolves either. Is it the most ideologically correct scenario? No. Is it the most realistic scenario? Maybe not. But when you get stuck in a cloud of butterflies its hard to determine exactly how the pieces will fall. When you have to make the choice between Americanization and starvation, the states in Mexico that see beneficial effects of US trade aren't gonna want to starve.

Actually according to La Raza Legal Central, 90% of the 10 million undocumented aliens who come into the United States, come with the idea that they will return to their country. Most of the time, the idea is that they will be able to provide money for family at home. This is certainly true of many Third World nations (e.g. the Philippines, Mexico, the People's Republic of China, et al.) wherein as much as 50% of the national economy is supported by immigrant laborers who send money back home in an effort to help relatives and sustain the country. As such, many would be insulted and infuriated by the idea of American annexation. Consider that it would be like Germany expecting world support after it annexes Poland in September 1939, simply because people in the Sudetenland in the North voted for annexation, and the military government of Pilsudski had collapsed under corruption politically and economically.

Also, why would American congreemen take the money of Mexican interests in the situation you have posed. By any economic model, the Mexican peso has been de-valued to the point of a Weimar Republic deutschmark. Also consider this is a situation wherein the United States would be entering an economic crises because of its alienation of allies around the world. Consider that you have given the EU, Japan, and PRC reason to launch an economic embargo of the United States...

 

[Blochead]

Of course they do so with the intent to send money home. But you're missing my point. If Mexico's economy goes down the toilet as you say and immigrant labor massively increases, then they're going to revitalize nativist concerns. IE, undocumented aliens flooding the nation. But by integrating themselves into the US to some degree, they get a guarantee of being able to go to that work instead of being machine gunned by a bunch of right wing militias on border patrol. That devalued peso is abseloutely no incentive to stay as part of Mexico, for one thing. Secondly, that devalued peso is also a big warning light to many American politicans to step in and 'do something'.

As for the world infuriation, you're pretty much right. South America, save for Colombia, is very angry about this. But here's the thing: They recognized a vote as being justification for a split years before. The US can say the abseloute same thing: they voted for it. The US isn't going to tolerate a broken Mexico, and Mexicans in the North aren't going to tolerate it either. But with many already angry at the US, why the hell would they let themselves go to the dogs? Consider the alternate ATL scenarios...

1) Mexicans do not vote to secede. Mexico most likely falls victim to the wonderful variety of authoritarian government that springs up during times of national crisis, or no government at all. Mexicans start undoing even more of their progress, and the rest of the world that doesn't hate the US already gets angry because the US is allowing a tinpot dictatorship to occur next door, or alternately, said tinpot dictatorship forces US into military conflict.

2) Mexicans vote to secede and US refuses to accept them. Mexicans become even more anti-American and/or illegal immigration skyrockets, causing even more fun for a southern economy already disoriented by disputes with South America and the economic turmoil from the loss of a stable trading partner.

So with those two as possible alternatives, this doesn't leave the Mexicans with a whole lot of choice but to fall back on the US or with the US any choice but to use this as a last ditch to entrench American influence in the nation.

As for your Poland metaphor, that would be valid here if the US was annexing all of Mexico. Which it is not. It is only annexing the part that voted to do so.

To summarize:

Statistics about illegal immigration aside, if Mexico doesn't turn out stable then the border will be militarized and all those who want to move into US to work (and there will be a hell of a lot more of them) are going to get shafted. That would be why they may vote to secede into US: Because they have a much better shot of getting those US jobs they want.

As for the international outrage, its a zero-sum game at this point. No matter what you do, someone is going to get the short end of the stick. And American politicans aren't going to take that short end when they're already unpopular anyway. With Iraq its easy to argue that way, but when the conflict directly influences American life, the politicians are going to be a bit more concerned about their own people rather than MERCOSUR or the EU.

EDIT: As for the trade war issue, its not like only the US would be taking the hurt. Such a trade war would lead to a shooting war, which would be very very bad for China this early on.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Definitely Consider the First Option...

Of course they do so with the intent to send money home. But you're missing my point. If Mexico's economy goes down the toilet as you say and immigrant labor massively increases, then they're going to revitalize nativist concerns. IE, undocumented aliens flooding the nation. But by integrating themselves into the US to some degree, they get a guarantee of being able to go to that work instead of being machine gunned by a bunch of right wing militias on border patrol. That devalued peso is abseloutely no incentive to stay as part of Mexico, for one thing. Secondly, that devalued peso is also a big warning light to many American politicans to step in and 'do something'.

As for the world infuriation, you're pretty much right. South America, save for Colombia, is very angry about this. But here's the thing: They recognized a vote as being justification for a split years before. The US can say the abseloute same thing: they voted for it. The US isn't going to tolerate a broken Mexico, and Mexicans in the North aren't going to tolerate it either. But with many already angry at the US, why the hell would they let themselves go to the dogs? Consider the alternate ATL scenarios...

1) Mexicans do not vote to secede. Mexico most likely falls victim to the wonderful variety of authoritarian government that springs up during times of national crisis, or no government at all. Mexicans start undoing even more of their progress, and the rest of the world that doesn't hate the US already gets angry because the US is allowing a tinpot dictatorship to occur next door, or alternately, said tinpot dictatorship forces US into military conflict.

2) Mexicans vote to secede and US refuses to accept them. Mexicans become even more anti-American and/or illegal immigration skyrockets, causing even more fun for a southern economy already disoriented by disputes with South America and the economic turmoil from the loss of a stable trading partner.

So with those two as possible alternatives, this doesn't leave the Mexicans with a whole lot of choice but to fall back on the US or with the US any choice but to use this as a last ditch to entrench American influence in the nation.

As for your Poland metaphor, that would be valid here if the US was annexing all of Mexico. Which it is not. It is only annexing the part that voted to do so.

To summarize:

Statistics about illegal immigration aside, if Mexico doesn't turn out stable then the border will be militarized and all those who want to move into US to work (and there will be a hell of a lot more of them) are going to get shafted. That would be why they may vote to secede into US: Because they have a much better shot of getting those US jobs they want.

As for the international outrage, its a zero-sum game at this point. No matter what you do, someone is going to get the short end of the stick. And American politicans aren't going to take that short end when they're already unpopular anyway. With Iraq its easy to argue that way, but when the conflict directly influences American life, the politicians are going to be a bit more concerned about their own people rather than MERCOSUR or the EU.

EDIT: As for the trade war issue, its not like only the US would be taking the hurt. Such a trade war would lead to a shooting war, which would be very very bad for China this early on.

-Just consider that it is much easier in the first option to have the United States install by military force their own "democratic candidate" and claim that he/she was elected by a plurality of the public (e.g. Panama,1991; Nicaragua, 1992; Haiti, 1993; et al.). This is a time-tested strategy that has been in usage since Costa Rica in 1953. It's cheaper for Americans and provides the diplomatic illusion of a crisis solved...

-Second, with the U.S. military, this doesn't rule out a "zone of military occupation" or a military-enforced "no-fly zone". This allows teh military to do its job within the region without any worries about civilian jurisdiction. Consider that it would cost at least 500% more (esp. with education, social security, public housing, et al.) for the occupation and annexation of the areas you propose, wherein a simple military "police action" is all that is needed to appease both sides...

-Third, consider that even with the election of a Benedicto Juarez, Partia Accion Nacional (PAN), you can easily reign him in with several points. First, you can still have the "zone of military occupation". Second, you can use thje issue of foreign aid loans. Third, you can always seal the borders from trade, which would cripple the nation economically. Either way, even the most anti-American leader get's screwed...

 

[Blochead]

-Certainly easier in the short term. That's what's going to happen to Chiapas when/if (haven't decided yet) the US decides to finish them off. But remember, the US is already under a big magnifying glass. Propping up a guy with some shiny fruit salad and pasting up posters won't fly with most of the world. And it would invite the possibility of Mexican backlash and a leftist revolution even closer to home.

-True, and it's the continuing cost combined with fears of increase in the foreign deficit that's going to delay the annexation for a significant amount of time. As I posted in the 2002 timeline, fiscal conservatives quadrupled the integration time and are likely to do so again in the next few years. Mexico will be in the state you describe for quite some time, though the US will be attempting to 'economically revitalize' it during that period. Americans and Mexicans are still too worried about the economy to put it all on foreign loans, which might as well be annexation when you consider the massive hit the economy has just taken. All in all, Northern Mexico will likely be voting in Federal Elections by 2030-2040. And yes, I may even go that far.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Also consider this....

-Certainly easier in the short term. That's what's going to happen to Chiapas when/if (haven't decided yet) the US decides to finish them off. But remember, the US is already under a big magnifying glass. Propping up a guy with some shiny fruit salad and pasting up posters won't fly with most of the world. And it would invite the possibility of Mexican backlash and a leftist revolution even closer to home.

-True, and it's the continuing cost combined with fears of increase in the foreign deficit that's going to delay the annexation for a significant amount of time. As I posted in the 2002 timeline, fiscal conservatives quadrupled the integration time and are likely to do so again in the next few years. Mexico will be in the state you describe for quite some time, though the US will be attempting to 'economically revitalize' it during that period. Americans and Mexicans are still too worried about the economy to put it all on foreign loans, which might as well be annexation when you consider the massive hit the economy has just taken. All in all, Northern Mexico will likely be voting in Federal Elections by 2030-2040. And yes, I may even go that far.

-You also several problems arising from Cuba. Consider that you have right-wing anti-Communist terrorist groups attempting to seize power over the government. You have Omega-7, Comandos de la Liberacion Unidos, Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil, Cuban-American National Foundation, and Alpha-66 trying to overthrow, assassinate or intimidate any leader with former ties to Fidel Castro, based out of Miami, FL. As such, expect more violence in the region...

-Second, consider that there would be an even greater Mexican backlash and anti-American sentiment caused by annexation. Although it wouldn't openly back any particular candidates, consider that it is a relatively easy thing for the government to achieve (e.g. Haiti, 1993; Afghanistan, 2002; Ukraine, 2004; Iraq, 2005; et al.). As long as people can hold a few rallies in Zocolo, the Mexico City plaza of the Presidential Palace and a few televised people will have the illusion of democracy...

 

[CalBear]

It is beginning to appear that you have a defined end-event to your TL, something that is well within your control, as it IS your timeline. However, even with this being a given, you can only expect that others will continue to point out difficulties with your chosen POD(s). It is not, at least most of the time, that other board members are looking to derail you, actually most of us who comment are, in our own charming ways, trying to help with items which strike us as overly implausable. Since there are many members here who have a great deal of expertise across a wide spectrum of subjects you can expect comments on nearly anything you include in a TL. Please do not let this get you down. If we didn't find interest in your efforts, they be simply be ignored.

It may be of use to you to consider some of the objections that are made regarding the political events you have posited. You might find in them both some truth & perhaps a way to alter your TL to make it more believable.

Best of luck with your TL

 

[Blochead]

2003- America had cast a lazy eye on the Mideast for a long time. Now, their concern for Latin America had allowed far too many things to go on without control. Iran's nuclear ambitions were exposed, and when Pakistan was shown to be involved in possible technology trade, SAARC nearly burst at the seams. China continued to support both nations, angering both Israel and India. Iran, at the time, was looking to solidify its connections with other Islamic nations, forming a prospective 'Central Asian Cooperative Group' after heavy negotiations with Azerbaijan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Afghanistan conceded 'homelands' where Shiia Muslims could live freely, and Iran would cut off arms support of these rebel factions. The nations acknowledged they had common interests, and moved to integrate with SAARC.

But things did not quite go as planned. India and Russia were outraged. The psuedo-alliance that composed of BRIC was falling apart. The problem was only intensified after US-Chinese negotiations over Chiapas. China agreed to cut off arms sales to MERCOSUR if the US would loosen some restrictions on trade. The US, looking to step down from the brink of trade war and eager to weaken the leftist triumvirate of Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina obliged. Brazil, now alienated, continued to buy up from Russia.

Russia itself was continuing to fight hard in Chechnya. The US had not yet felt the backlash of Islamic fundementalism. But Turkey and Russia were. Turkey, a US friendly secular Republic, stood at a vital three way junction between East, West, and politically, America. With prospective EU membership talks, it looked as if Turkey had a bright future.

And then, on May 18, a series of bomb blasts rocked Istanbul. It was an attack that symbolically struck at the link between Europe and the secular nation of Turkey. Europe backed away as it watched smoke plume on the other side of the Bosphorous. Working ruthlessly and efficiently, Turkish Intelligence tracked down attacks to Syrian groups. It was a throwback to 1998, and it was hoped this conflict would end the same. It wasn't the case. Syria demanded the Turks back down, and conducted its own 'investigation'. Turks were outraged, and as Kurdish rebellion reached the verge of outbreak in Turkey, Ankara demanded for the final time that they hand over every involved man. They refused.

For the second time in about half a decade, a nation was to be invaded for its complicity to terrorism. Though the links were more definite, it was a trend that disturbed many. A 'vigilante justice' that transcended national borders had been seen in Cuba, and soon crashed down on Syria. Turkish fighters were the first to strike the blow. Appeals for peace by the EU were met by American condemnation of Syria as bombs fell in Damascus. Turkey made strong initial advances due to its well-planned blitzkrieg, but strong Syrian resistance slowed the Turkish Army down. The US asked both nations stand down as Egypt offered to again mediate peace talks. None of that had much effect. Syria was effectively decapitated, the President not making any confirmable statement. It was generally assumed the Syrian military was calling the shots. When Turkey massed armor for a breakthrough under a helicopter and fighter combined arms assault, the end of the year Syria was running out of options...

Midterm elections in the US resulted in no significant shift of power. The US funds were continually based on lowering the national debt, slowly phasing in Mexico, and maintaining the American hegemony in Latin America.

 

[Blochead]

It is beginning to appear that you have a defined end-event to your TL, something that is well within your control, as it IS your timeline. However, even with this being a given, you can only expect that others will continue to point out difficulties with your chosen POD(s). It is not, at least most of the time, that other board members are looking to derail you, actually most of us who comment are, in our own charming ways, trying to help with items which strike us as overly implausable. Since there are many members here who have a great deal of expertise across a wide spectrum of subjects you can expect comments on nearly anything you include in a TL. Please do not let this get you down. If we didn't find interest in your efforts, they be simply be ignored.

It may be of use to you to consider some of the objections that are made regarding the political events you have posited. You might find in them both some truth & perhaps a way to alter your TL to make it more believable.

Best of luck with your TL

Yeah, I have been a bit stubborn about it, but I am willing to alter it. My primary objection to Bondoc has really been based on a social vs economic gap. For now I'm assuming economic pull will win over social ties/views involving the US. I wouldn't say that either way is unrealistic, but I don't think there's enough evidence that this would be so implausible as to require complete removal of the plot point.

 

[CalBear]

<snip>

And then, on May 18, a series of bomb blasts rocked Istanbul. It was an attack that symbolically struck at the link between Europe and the secular nation of Turkey. Europe backed away as it watched smoke plume on the other side of the Bosphorous. Working ruthlessly and efficiently, Turkish Intelligence tracked down attacks to Syrian groups. It was a throwback to 1998, and it was hoped this conflict would end the same. It wasn't the case. Syria demanded the Turks back down, and conducted its own 'investigation'. Turks were outraged, and as Kurdish rebellion reached the verge of outbreak in Turkey, Ankara demanded for the final time that they hand over every involved man. They refused.

For the second time in about half a decade, a nation was to be invaded for its complicity to terrorism. Though the links were more definite, it was a trend that disturbed many. A 'vigilante justice' that transcended national borders had been seen in Cuba, and soon crashed down on Syria. Turkish fighters were the first to strike the blow. Appeals for peace by the EU were met by American condemnation of Syria as bombs fell in Damascus. Turkey made strong initial advances due to its well-planned blitzkrieg, but strong Syrian resistance slowed the Turkish Army down. The US asked both nations stand down as Egypt offered to again mediate peace talks. None of that had much effect. Syria was effectively decapitated, the President not making any confirmable statement. It was generally assumed the Syrian military was calling the shots. When Turkey massed armor for a breakthrough under a helicopter and fighter combined arms assault, the end of the year Syria was running out of options...

Midterm elections in the US resulted in no significant shift of power. The US funds were continually based on lowering the national debt, slowly phasing in Mexico, and maintaining the American hegemony in Latin America.

"Strong Syrian resistance" is an oxymoron.

Without any American or NATO assistance (both of which would likely be forthcoming, as the Charter says "An attack on one is an attack on all"), the Turkish Army would would chew up & spit the Syrians inside of a week, two weeks if Damascus was extremely lucky. In a region full of poorly led, poorly trained, and poorly motivated militaries, the Syrians stand out as the Poster Child. Turkey's forces, on the other hand, are very well trained, have a history of good leadership, and it's troops are justly renowned as some of the toughest in the world. This is an overmatch/walkover event for Turkey, even without the support of the huge USAF air presence in the country (which dates all the way back to the Cold War).

 

[Blochead]

Yeah, the Syrian army is pretty much crap, but I'm assuming Syria will be able to muster up some motivation for their military. I might adjust the attack date a bit, but now that I think about it Syria would have thrown out some WMDs by now. So with that in mind... A revised Syrian War timeline.

2003- America had cast a lazy eye on the Mideast for a long time. Now, their concern for Latin America had allowed far too many things to go on without control. Iran's nuclear ambitions were exposed, and when Pakistan was shown to be involved in possible technology trade, SAARC nearly burst at the seams. China continued to support both nations, angering both Israel and India. Iran, at the time, was looking to solidify its connections with other Islamic nations, forming a prospective 'Central Asian Cooperative Group' after heavy negotiations with Azerbaijan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Afghanistan conceded 'homelands' where Shiia Muslims could live freely, and Iran would cut off arms support of these rebel factions. The nations acknowledged they had common interests, and moved to integrate with SAARC.

But things did not quite go as planned. India and Russia were outraged. The psuedo-alliance that composed of BRIC was falling apart. The problem was only intensified after US-Chinese negotiations over Chiapas. China agreed to cut off arms sales to MERCOSUR if the US would loosen some restrictions on trade. The US, looking to step down from the brink of trade war and eager to weaken the leftist triumvirate of Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina obliged. Brazil, now alienated, continued to buy up from Russia.

Russia itself was continuing to fight hard in Chechnya. The US had not yet felt the backlash of Islamic fundementalism. But Turkey and Russia were. Turkey, a US friendly secular Republic, stood at a vital three way junction between East, West, and politically, America. With prospective EU membership talks, it looked as if Turkey had a bright future.

And then, on November 18, a series of bomb blasts rocked Istanbul. It was an attack that symbolically struck at the link between Europe and the secular nation of Turkey. Europe backed away as it watched smoke plume on the other side of the Bosphorous. Working ruthlessly and efficiently, Turkish Intelligence tracked down attacks to Syrian groups. It was a throwback to 1998, and it was hoped this conflict would end the same. It wasn't the case. Syria demanded the Turks back down in December as troops massed on the border, and conducted its own 'investigation'. Turks were outraged, and as Kurdish rebellion reached the verge of outbreak in Turkey, Ankara demanded for the final time that they hand over every involved man. They refused.

For the second time in about half a decade, a nation was to be invaded for its complicity to terrorism. Though the links were more definite, it was a trend that disturbed many. A 'vigilante justice' that transcended national borders had been seen in Cuba, and soon crashed down on Syria. Turkish fighters were the first to strike the blow. Appeals for peace by the EU were met by American condemnation of Syria as bombs fell in Damascus. Turkey made strong initial advances due to its well-planned blitzkrieg, but Turkey didn't want to completely occupy the nation. They delibrately kept their advance paced, hoping to get concessions out of the shaken government The US asked both nations stand down as Egypt offered to again mediate peace talks. None of that had much effect. Syria was effectively decapitated, the President not making any confirmable statement. It was generally assumed the Syrian military was calling the shots. When Turkey massed armor for a breakthrough under a helicopter and fighter combined arms assault, the end of the year Syria was running out of options...

Midterm elections in the US resulted in no significant shift of power. The US funds were continually based on lowering the national debt, slowly phasing in Mexico, and maintaining the American hegemony in Latin America.


2004- The year began with horror. On New Year's Day Syrian military commanders authorized Chemical weapons release. A few SS-N-3B cruise missiles were still intact, and on January 2nd VX gas ravaged four cities in Southern Turkey. Along the line, FROG-7 and other rocket platforms lanched sarin and mustard gas into Turkish lines. The attack had no logic, only the anger and frustrations of Syrian military commanders. Over 18,000 civilians were killed by the VX attacks, but Turks were well trained in NBC warfare and managed to respond quickly. Soon, Syria was under Turkish military occupation. Military commanders who were suspected to be involved with WMD release were given quick court martials and quicker execution.

Iran is outraged, and demands immediate Turkish withdrawal, and offers to have CACG Bloc troops 'peacekeep' in the area. UN attempts to replace Turks with intenrational peacekeepers are vetoed by the US.

Problems only increase when MERCOSUR is found to be harboring a nuclear weapons development program. Lead by Argentina and Brazil in a joint rather than competitive program, as pursued in the 1970s, the US demands they immediately cease the program. MERCOSUR responds defiantly that they require them to defend from US invasion. Combined with the Iranian and North Korean programs, the IAEA warns the world about the rapid increase in nuclear proliferation.

In the US, McCain wins another term. He pushes increased funding for FEMA after the horror of chemical use in Turkey and the threat of a nuclear armed MERCOSUR. As a part of the incraesed FEMA funding, New Orleans and other Gulf of Mexico areas recieve funding for increased defense against natural disasters as well as the possibility of a US-MERCOSUR war.

 

[Blochead]

[Foreword: Be warned that this will be one of my wonkiest years in terms of foreign policy. All the butterflies from the Turkey-Syria war are going to seriously mess things up, and if there are any major issues, PLEASE bring it up (despite the fact I've been quite stubborn over other plot points).]

2005- Turkey and Russia strike a deal that disturbs much of the Mideast. Since the hostilities between the CACG have made the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline an impossibility, Turkey agrees to sign trade bills to help the Russian oil industry if Russia discontinues uranium supply to the Iranian nuclear program. Russia, which has seen cool relations with Syria since the fall of the USSR, now has no reason to stand against Turkey, an important Russian economic partner.

This situation forces the CACG into a most unpleasant situation. Israel and Turkey have only grown more friendly as Israel's most hostile neighbor is put under the boot. Iran and Pakistan, the primary military members of CACG, are skeptical that they could stand up to the combined force of Turkey and Israel in a full-blown war. And Iran's nuclear option would wither if they did not get a source of uranium soon. With the Western World firmly against them, the CACG looks South.

In a series of clandestine meetings Iran agrees to a 'research sharing' initiative with the MERCOSUR nuclear development program, and begins purchasing uranium from Brazil.

The Russia-Iran divergence also continues to hammer a wedge between Russia and China. CACG nations are primarily pro-China and China supported, with China purchasing oil in Central Asia in exchange for arms. CACG nations in turn antagonize Russian allies in the Mideast and India. The idea of an 'anti-US' bloc of Russia and China or a cooperative BRIC is considered to be 'put to rest' by many analysts.

Meanwhile in the United States, Hurricane Katrina batters the Gulf. New Orleans, which has always been hurting since the virtually open hostilities between the US and MERCOSUR, finds itself shaken but standing. Though damage is quite heavy, the wisely-allocated FEMA funding was a slap in the face to those who called the massively increased budget unnecessary and bloated. Nevertheless, it was another reminder of financial hardship for Americans. Venezuela in an almost satirical gesture offered to give massively reduced oil to poorer citizens, and none accepted it on the grounds that 'a quarter of every dollar' went to funding a nation that declares itself against America.

 

[Nicole]

What does Turkey plan to do with Syria?

 

[Blochead]

Turkey is 'uprooting' the Syrian government, or what remains of it. Most likely a puppet or pseudo-colony will be set up that forces Syria to make military concessions and allows Turkish intelligence more leeway in cleansing it of terrorists.


Not sure how realistic that is, but whatever happens, after the WMD attacks I'm pretty sure Syria would be making some massive concessions in terms of military power.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Things Get Ugly...

Turkey is 'uprooting' the Syrian government, or what remains of it. Most likely a puppet or pseudo-colony will be set up that forces Syria to make military concessions and allows Turkish intelligence more leeway in cleansing it of terrorists.


Not sure how realistic that is, but whatever happens, after the WMD attacks I'm pretty sure Syria would be making some massive concessions in terms of military power.

Actually this would create tensions for a possible world war. Consider the fact that Turkey is a part of NATO. Such a measure will inevitably draw the United States government into the conflict. To make matters worse, you would have the religious fundamentalists, who won 45% of the parliamentary vote in 2002, would certainly launch a series of violent civil unrest throughout the country. Just remember, you have just attacked another Muslim government.

Second, this will certainly not go well in the Arab world as Syria calls upon its allies in Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, and the other Arab states in protest. To make matters worse, Syria is a political ally of Russia and the People's Republic of China. At the very least, watch as the OPEC nations and Russia openly launch a major oil embargo against the EU and the United States. This would mean gas prices in the U.S. spiking to at least $4.00/gallon...

As for tensions in NATO. Consider the fact that you have the Kurdish Liberation Army (KLA) in both southern Turkey and northern Iraq. Watch as the Syrians arm Kurdish rebels in the Iraqi "no-fly zone" to aid KLA rebels in Turkey, all while under the watch of American forces in the northern half of Iraq. In a move certain to anger the Turkish government, the government of Greece launches its own offensive, using the pollitical justification of "securing its borders" by taking control over the disputed regions of Cyprus...

 

[Blochead]

Don't worry Bondoc, 2006 will be a year for a big Mideastern war. However, regarding Russia, Turkey may be more valuable economic partner, given the deal Turkey has cut with Russia (that increases Russian oil power in Caucasus). Russia is 'bought off'. Russia would certainly be angry but wouldn't want to risk a full-blown war with its biggest neighbors (The EU/NATO and the US).

Perhaps it would be more of a 'war by proxy'... Russia would be clandestinely feeding weapons and intelligence to Gulf nations, whereas China would be doing so to CACG. Russia wouldn't want to directly arm CACG nations like Pakistan since that would alienate their allies in India, but would probably have no qualms about doing so in the GCC bloc. Likewise, US/EU would come in with a Nickel-Grass if Israel hit it too hard, and probably intelligence sharing would occur between 'Western' forces and the extensive US ELINT assets in the area.