How was that harsh? The story was finished. I gave a pretext of what the invasion could be based off of.
A Spanish-Moroccan War in 2002
- Thread starter Dr. Strangelove
- Start date
- Status
How was that harsh? The story was finished. I gave a pretext of what the invasion could be based off of.
In Re-Reading The Epilogue, I Have to Wonder if The Iraq War will Still Take Place, At ALL ...
In OTL The Iraq War did a Lot to Polarize American Opinion about President Bush, With Many Condemning his Uni-Lateral Invasion, But with Many More Rallying Around him!
Especially if The World Economy Takes a Tumble, Because of The War in The Straits, The Democrats may have a Much Better Showing in 2004 ...
Even Just a Simple Substitution of Foreign-Policy-Expert Joe Biden for Flash-in-The-Pan John Edwards as Vice President, Could be Enough to Put Ohio Back into Play, And with it, The Presidency itself!
In OTL The Iraq War did a Lot to Polarize American Opinion about President Bush, With Many Condemning his Uni-Lateral Invasion, But with Many More Rallying Around him!
Especially if The World Economy Takes a Tumble, Because of The War in The Straits, The Democrats may have a Much Better Showing in 2004 ...
Even Just a Simple Substitution of Foreign-Policy-Expert Joe Biden for Flash-in-The-Pan John Edwards as Vice President, Could be Enough to Put Ohio Back into Play, And with it, The Presidency itself!
Fantastic
I really enjoyed this timeline, glad you won that award for it.
So was the Algerian moves always just a fakeout, or would they have invaded and taken some territory if Moracco would have kept fighting or maybe secured a big victory?
I also really enjoyed how the military engaged in a coup for peace and self preservation.
And this was truly a war for oil...the liberals would have had a field day if the US started an Iraqi invasion if the peace treaty was done in TTL.
I really enjoyed this timeline, glad you won that award for it.
So was the Algerian moves always just a fakeout, or would they have invaded and taken some territory if Moracco would have kept fighting or maybe secured a big victory?
I also really enjoyed how the military engaged in a coup for peace and self preservation.
And this was truly a war for oil...the liberals would have had a field day if the US started an Iraqi invasion if the peace treaty was done in TTL.
Dr. Strangelove
Banned
Thank you.
The algerians were in no situation to invade, with islamists rampaging in the streets. The algerian movements had two objectives:
First, to pressure the moroccans into begging for peace. They succeeded.
Second, and in case the moroccans refused to surrender, the algerians hoped that the spaniards would do another landing in eastern morocco to take Melilla back. Then, they would invade to give the coup de grace and be able to claim something at the peace table. They could not know that Operation Black had bled the spanish white of their last supplies and made any other amphibious operation impossible for at least several weeks.
boredatwork
Banned
Unilateral?
The Aussies, Poles, Czechs, etc must find that an interesting opinion
While reading again the TL (I think it is possibly one of the best ones), I could not help but smiling here:
Specially as Rodriguez Zapatero has proven to be incapable of understanding the basics of economy...
Specially as Rodriguez Zapatero has proven to be incapable of understanding the basics of economy...
By Uni-Lateral, I Meant Unprovoked ...
But I Knew someone would INTENTIONALLY Mis-Construe My Remarks, And Thus I had a Response Prepared in Advance ...
To Put it Bluntly, The Bush Administration Faked The Intelligence about Iraq, And Lied to those other Countries to Make them Participate!
A sad fate for Moroccans but quite a realistic one. I also love how you accurately captured Algeria's stance (I'm an Algerian). Our government has always been neutral in every conflict, particularly those involving Iraq with Iran and Kuwait (though it can be seen the position was pro-Iraqi within the Arab League, despite maintaining good ties with Iran at the same time). Algeria would probably have to appease its population for collaborating with a European invader though, but I think that's what our government would do. When it comes to bringing Morocco down, it would stop at nothing.
That the Maghreb moves closer to the EU strikes me as problematic as Morocco and Algeria have a growing population of Muslim conservatives, and if Morocco becomes a democracy, then surely they will move back towards the Arab League, albeit being rejected. Algeria and Morocco might find themselves in an unlikely alliance to quell their Muslim populations. Although the liberalization of Morocco would result in rapid growth, and show Algeria to be inferior in development. Hopefully that would be enough pressure on Algeria to modernize itself (Tunisia might too, avoiding this year's uprising and crisis). Libya and Mauritania, too, are members of the Arab Maghreb Union. With the Sahrawi Republic now officially independent, it might be accepted into the AMU without significant Moroccan opposition. The AMU might turn into a down-scaled EU. Mauritania, historically dependent on others (first France, then Morocco, today Algeria), would rejoice at the reconciliation of is two largest benefactors. Libya's Gaddafi might get angry for a few months, but will gradually cool down and acquiesce like he always does. Morocco would also rejoin the African Union, having been the only African country to leave it after it recognized the SADR. Democratization might lead to a confederation or a full blown federation, and perhaps even a single republic or monarchy. Algeria's natural gas and Libya's oil would prove vital for the economy.
Then as the united Barbary Coast is reborn, conflict over Spanish territories in North Africa might rise again...
That the Maghreb moves closer to the EU strikes me as problematic as Morocco and Algeria have a growing population of Muslim conservatives, and if Morocco becomes a democracy, then surely they will move back towards the Arab League, albeit being rejected. Algeria and Morocco might find themselves in an unlikely alliance to quell their Muslim populations. Although the liberalization of Morocco would result in rapid growth, and show Algeria to be inferior in development. Hopefully that would be enough pressure on Algeria to modernize itself (Tunisia might too, avoiding this year's uprising and crisis). Libya and Mauritania, too, are members of the Arab Maghreb Union. With the Sahrawi Republic now officially independent, it might be accepted into the AMU without significant Moroccan opposition. The AMU might turn into a down-scaled EU. Mauritania, historically dependent on others (first France, then Morocco, today Algeria), would rejoice at the reconciliation of is two largest benefactors. Libya's Gaddafi might get angry for a few months, but will gradually cool down and acquiesce like he always does. Morocco would also rejoin the African Union, having been the only African country to leave it after it recognized the SADR. Democratization might lead to a confederation or a full blown federation, and perhaps even a single republic or monarchy. Algeria's natural gas and Libya's oil would prove vital for the economy.
Then as the united Barbary Coast is reborn, conflict over Spanish territories in North Africa might rise again...
you made a minor mistake, plus a question
Moulay is a title meaning something like Prince of the Blood. So Mohammed vI would be succeeded by his brother as King Rachid I of Morocco.
Then there's the matter of Mohammed VI's son Moulay Hassan, born May 8th, 2003. When Mohammed VI abdicates in January 2003, shouldn't his wife already be visibly pregnant? What effect would that have on the succession?
Moulay is a title meaning something like Prince of the Blood. So Mohammed vI would be succeeded by his brother as King Rachid I of Morocco.
Then there's the matter of Mohammed VI's son Moulay Hassan, born May 8th, 2003. When Mohammed VI abdicates in January 2003, shouldn't his wife already be visibly pregnant? What effect would that have on the succession?
Dr. Strangelove
Banned
People are still reading this one?
And besides, it is pretty much clear that Spain shot first.
I wish that was the lesser mistake in the epilogue.
And besides, it is pretty much clear that Spain shot first.
Goldstein
Banned
I wish that was the lesser mistake in the epilogue.
Oh, but it's quite easy to retcon! Let me make a casual suggestion:
In general, the world of 2010 in TTL is slightly different from ours, with a greater transatlantic divide between the US and Europe, World Economy not going to Hell and a greater divide in the muslim world between pro and anti western states. Then 2011 comes, and the difference respect to OTL becomes brutal. Dun, dun, dun, dunnn...
NATO ARTICLE 5??
thanks for re-starting this wonderful discussion...
In my opinion, the reason for a no-NATO engagement in this scenario is not the so called "colonial war." Ceuta and Melilla have not the colony status, moreover, are 100% Spanish metropolitan territory (like Sevilla or Barcelona).
The question for a possible NATO engagement has to be studied reading the following articles of the North Atlantic Treaty:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
After this event:
But this is the question: NATO support is not automatically provided. The attacked nation has to INVOICE the Article 5 (like USA did after the 09/11 attacks), and to request the support.
And maybe, in this case, due to the Machiavelic Spanish plans (pink, black and so on), it was not a good idea to loose the national initiative and request the NATO support.
thanks for re-starting this wonderful discussion...
In my opinion, the reason for a no-NATO engagement in this scenario is not the so called "colonial war." Ceuta and Melilla have not the colony status, moreover, are 100% Spanish metropolitan territory (like Sevilla or Barcelona).
The question for a possible NATO engagement has to be studied reading the following articles of the North Atlantic Treaty:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
After this event:
Spain could have requested NATO support: Article 6: ..on the forces, vessels, (....) or the Mediterranean Sea.Yes, the frigate was in the NATO "area of responsability."
But this is the question: NATO support is not automatically provided. The attacked nation has to INVOICE the Article 5 (like USA did after the 09/11 attacks), and to request the support.
And maybe, in this case, due to the Machiavelic Spanish plans (pink, black and so on), it was not a good idea to loose the national initiative and request the NATO support.
Considering this is 2002, this would count as a colonial war?
Yes, as the author pointed out, the Spanish fired first, and the areas contested are on the Moroccan side of the strait.
Rereading this I could definitely see an earlier Arab Spring since Morocco became a parliamentary democracy. Or at least a more successful one in Algeria.
Also, with Republican losses in 2002, you have avoided the 2003 Bush tax cuts, which is a Very Good Thing.
Was the UK retconned into still going into Iraq? If not, Labour could still be in power there today...
Also, with Republican losses in 2002, you have avoided the 2003 Bush tax cuts, which is a Very Good Thing.
Was the UK retconned into still going into Iraq? If not, Labour could still be in power there today...
- Status