Valamyr
Banned
I realize this is a little fresh of an event for most to take an unbiaised approach to possible AH, but for the hell of it, I was wondering; how much pressure would the anti-war camp need to exert to prevent the USA from attacking Iraq altogether?
Lets remember the vast majority of the peoples of the world were united against it in a overwhelming majority. Desire to preserve relations with the USA made even the most bitter enemies of the war remain at best neutral, though, there was never any serious talk of sanctions or military consequences outside of the arab world, which of course does not have the possibility to follow suit.
However, France, Germany, Russia and China might have been more persuasive. I dont really see Russia and China taking the initiative of such an effort though, as they'd have much more to lose than Western Europe.
Heres a possible scenario which begins in very early 2003, when the war begins to seem unavoidable:
Knowing the war probably very damaging and wrong, "old europe" takes a bolder stance to prevent it. Threatening the very foundations of NATO, France and Germany begin using the EU structure to push european-wide economic and diplomatic sanctions on the US and its allies in case of an invasion.
With most of the US allies in Eastern Europe, and not yet EU members, blocking the entry of belligerant countries is on the agenda as well.
Italy is the only real obstacle. There is a brief showdown inside the EU, but the peace camp prevails. The EU goes much further than OTL, and threatens to pull back from NATO and set up European Defense Headquarters in Brussels. Though Germany grits her teeth, the planned measures also include dismantling all US bases in EU territory.
The east european countries which supported the US war; Poland, bulgaria, etc, immediately turn around and pull back all assistance. Joining the EU as planned a few months later is much more important.
So in this case, two possibilities; Either NATO crumble to pieces and becomes a US/UK alliance, with mainland Europe going its separate way, united by a bitter resentment of the USA, with its own defense. Europe impose direct trade sanctions on the USA, US embassies are closed in several key countries. Several resolutions are symbolically brought before the UN for sanctions, pass through the assembly, but are of course vetoed at the security council by the USA. The UN either collapses or move its seat to Europe as the USA withdraws from it and pursues alone its middle eastern policies. Blair's UK probably stick to Washington no matter what. A sucessful non confidence motion over there is likely, though.
Or, in face of this overwhelming pressure and the certitude to split the western world in two camps, Bush stops and calls the soldiers home, blaming endlessly Europe for making the world "more dangerous" and all that. French bashing evolves into Euro bashing and takes unprecedented scope, relations are damaged by the European threats but NATO and the UN holds.
Which is the most likely? Which hurts Bush's reelection bid the most? In the former scenario, would a much stronger peace camp dare pushing the anti-US stance to the point suggesting to militarily oppose the invasion? All European media would surely give an extremely anti-US stance on the war, to the point of overshadowing Al-Jazeera.
Lets remember the vast majority of the peoples of the world were united against it in a overwhelming majority. Desire to preserve relations with the USA made even the most bitter enemies of the war remain at best neutral, though, there was never any serious talk of sanctions or military consequences outside of the arab world, which of course does not have the possibility to follow suit.
However, France, Germany, Russia and China might have been more persuasive. I dont really see Russia and China taking the initiative of such an effort though, as they'd have much more to lose than Western Europe.
Heres a possible scenario which begins in very early 2003, when the war begins to seem unavoidable:
Knowing the war probably very damaging and wrong, "old europe" takes a bolder stance to prevent it. Threatening the very foundations of NATO, France and Germany begin using the EU structure to push european-wide economic and diplomatic sanctions on the US and its allies in case of an invasion.
With most of the US allies in Eastern Europe, and not yet EU members, blocking the entry of belligerant countries is on the agenda as well.
Italy is the only real obstacle. There is a brief showdown inside the EU, but the peace camp prevails. The EU goes much further than OTL, and threatens to pull back from NATO and set up European Defense Headquarters in Brussels. Though Germany grits her teeth, the planned measures also include dismantling all US bases in EU territory.
The east european countries which supported the US war; Poland, bulgaria, etc, immediately turn around and pull back all assistance. Joining the EU as planned a few months later is much more important.
So in this case, two possibilities; Either NATO crumble to pieces and becomes a US/UK alliance, with mainland Europe going its separate way, united by a bitter resentment of the USA, with its own defense. Europe impose direct trade sanctions on the USA, US embassies are closed in several key countries. Several resolutions are symbolically brought before the UN for sanctions, pass through the assembly, but are of course vetoed at the security council by the USA. The UN either collapses or move its seat to Europe as the USA withdraws from it and pursues alone its middle eastern policies. Blair's UK probably stick to Washington no matter what. A sucessful non confidence motion over there is likely, though.
Or, in face of this overwhelming pressure and the certitude to split the western world in two camps, Bush stops and calls the soldiers home, blaming endlessly Europe for making the world "more dangerous" and all that. French bashing evolves into Euro bashing and takes unprecedented scope, relations are damaged by the European threats but NATO and the UN holds.
Which is the most likely? Which hurts Bush's reelection bid the most? In the former scenario, would a much stronger peace camp dare pushing the anti-US stance to the point suggesting to militarily oppose the invasion? All European media would surely give an extremely anti-US stance on the war, to the point of overshadowing Al-Jazeera.
Last edited:
as the time of action. Well, since the EU was neither willing nor able to match US commitments to the former Warsaw Pact members, you could easily have a dramatically reduced EU, especially if the UK, Spain, Italy, etc go along with the US. More likely the entire organization is paralyzed and there is massive bitterness just as work on the EU Constitution is being finalized.