Jesus Walks: A History of the War on Terror, 1979-1992

Given the response to the latest chapter, I'm gonna go ahead and declare it TEMPORARILY NON-CANON until a solution can be found. We all seem to be on different pages here, so I'll try to summarize the various points being brought up, regardless of what I think of their validity:
-The deal is stupid, to a degree which cannot even be accepted by simply stating that Carter made a bad call in the context of the story.

-India was Soviet-leaning anyway.

-The Commonwealth would completely lose their shit over India being surrendered to the Soviets.

-Both the USA and the USSR would be giving up on nations they'd previously invested in relations with.

-Carter doesn't need Soviet support in Iran.

-Allowing such dramatic Soviet expansion would be political suicide for Carter, no matter what he gains in the trade.

-The deal means nothing for tensions between NATO and the Soviets in Europe.

-America, ultimately, is offering the Soviets nothing but empty promises.
Ultimately, as a writer, I would like to find a final solution as close as possible to what I originally posted (Soviets get Pakistan and India, the US and USSR support each other in their middle eastern wars, the Cold War is effectively over), because I do have some interesting things I'd like to do with that region eventually, and Jimmy Carter ending the Cold War is a pretty great "Holy Shit!" moment which puts the 1980 election up in the air.

As for the people looking forward to Pat Robertson, he'll be introduced soon, but he won't become a major player until the 1984 Presidential Election, which is a long way off.

OK, I understand what you want to do here, but the problem is that I just don't think it's politically possible, in the context of early 1980 - less than 5 years after the fall of South Vietnam and Cambodia, when the Soviet Union was still perceived by many people as being in a dangerously expansionist phase, when it'd invaded Afghanistan only half a year earlier, when the (leftist) Sandinistas had overthrown the Somoza regime in Nicaragua the previous summer, when Carter was already under harsh criticism from the right for what was viewed as a dangerously soft stance toward the Kremlin, when pressure was building on said Kremlin to live up to its human-rights obligations under the Helsinki Treaty in Eastern Europe, when the pressures that would lead to the rise of Solidarity were building in Poland, when there was deep alarm (though in fact the rebuilding process was already well under way) about the perceived state of the U.S. armed forces - with all that, it is simply not politically feasible for Carter to do something so dramatic as you're proposing. The perceived "surrender" of Pakistan, a longstanding U.S. ally, and still more India - a democracy, notwithstanding its friendly ties with the USSR - to the Soviet sphere of influence is going to send a HUGE chunk of the American political spectrum into a berserk state when it finds out just what happened - and it's just going to be plain impossible for something like that to stay secret for very long, particularly not in the post-Watergate climate when people were deeply, deeply suspicious of government secretkeeping. I remember those years firsthand, being in high school in those years (as I've said before), so trust me on this. What you propose is, when you get right down to it, just not plausible in its current form, and I am very much afraid that you may end up having to rethink that part of the story.

The thing about it is...if you want to get the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. to cooperate against terrorism and even to be tacitly allied, I think you can do it, as 037771 suggested, without the U.S. surrendering the lion's share of the Indian Subcontinent to the Soviet sphere of influence, especially given that you've already established that TTL, Carter didn't blast the Soviets for invading Afghanistan. This is already a big change that you can work from, and I think you can set up a greater degree of Soviet-American cooperation in the Middle East without Carter "giving away the store" in south Asia.
 
Last edited:
The thing about it is...if you want to get the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. to cooperate against terrorism and even to be tacitly allied, I think you can do it, as 037771 suggested, without the U.S. surrendering the lion's share of the Indian Subcontinent to the Soviet sphere of influence, especially given that you've already established that TTL, Carter didn't blast the Soviets for invading Afghanistan. This is already a big change that you can work from, and I think you can set up a greater degree of Soviet-American cooperation in the Middle East without Carter "giving away the store" in south Asia.

I think I'll probably wind up going with that as a solution. It's not even that terribly important that anything happens with India now, since those plans I had in mind wouldn't happen until after 1992 anyway.
 
One other thing: with the end of the Cold War due to the war on terror, what happens to the other members of the Non-Aligned Movement? Especially Yugoslavia since the West may not have any more incentives to aid them without a Soviet threat.
 
Ultimately, as a writer, I would like to find a final solution as close as possible to what I originally posted (Soviets get Pakistan and India, the US and USSR support each other in their middle eastern wars, the Cold War is effectively over), because I do have some interesting things I'd like to do with that region eventually, and Jimmy Carter ending the Cold War is a pretty great "Holy Shit!" moment which puts the 1980 election up in the air.

As for the people looking forward to Pat Robertson, he'll be introduced soon, but he won't become a major player until the 1984 Presidential Election, which is a long way off.

Actually, while Thatcher will be having conniption fits, in many ways, it's not so much handing the Indians and Pakistanis to the Soviets, just taking them out of the US sphere. This works for the Soviets but is actually, (now I've had some time to consider it), a bonus for the British.

The view from Whitehall will by and large be "Good, now they've buggered off, we can do it properly". It'll be interesting to see what Britain can do between the two nations if they feel they are A) The Americans won't be poking their nose in, and B) It's the great game all over again. Once it's put to Thatcher like that, (and especially if David Stirling gets wind of this), there will be far fewer complaints, just lots of veiled comments about losing sight of the end goal...

I'm not sure what effect this will have on Europe though, the Americans going soft on the Soviets, (and I can see Perfidious Albion stirring the pot "indeed Germany, you dealt with the Red Army Faction quite well, how did that war go? Oh that's right, you didn't need one, Oh hi Spain, how's your war against ETA going? What, you're not having one? I'm so shocked"...).

I think this could be amusing but no idea what the butterflies will be mind.
 

Nick P

Donor
Chapter 13: Master Exploder


The operators pulled back the canvasses of the trucks, revealing two Bell H-13 light helicopters, with rotors modified to be foldable. 8 harnesses hung from each helo.
..... The helos took off, straining under the weight but still able to fly. Marcinko took out his radio.
Fantastic episode there, I love this story so far. :)

But I have doubts about using the Bell H-13 for this role. I seriously don't believe they would be capable of lifting 10 men at a time. They struggled to lift 2 crew plus 2 on stretchers so another 6 guys is stretching it too far.

However, if you were to use the OH-6 Cayuse aka the MD500 Defender then I'd say it's more realistic than using a helo that was going out of service in the mid-1970's.
I think you could get 4 inside plus 3 each side on an external mounted bench or standing on the skid attached to a harness.

Interestingly the CIA converted a pair of OH-6 for near silent flight in 1972, who's to say that Delta Force wouldn't play with this concept?;)
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/OH-6_Cayuse#.22The_Quiet_One.22
 
I'm not sure what effect this will have on Europe though, the Americans going soft on the Soviets, (and I can see Perfidious Albion stirring the pot "indeed Germany, you dealt with the Red Army Faction quite well, how did that war go? Oh that's right, you didn't need one, Oh hi Spain, how's your war against ETA going? What, you're not having one? I'm so shocked"...).

I think this could be amusing but no idea what the butterflies will be mind.
Interesting ideas. Don't think that stirring will be greatly appreciated, but...

Also, will Whitehall be able to make hay regarding its own terrorist issues? Support for "Northern Irish Terrorist Organisations" (Copyright M.Thatcher) from across the pond may get significantly smaller if the government are clever about things. Then again, there may be a disconnect between "Terror" in a Middle Eastern sense and "Terror" in a European sense.
 
New chapter today. Chapter 14 is still non-canon, except for the parts set in Afghanistan. I'll likely be revising it to remove the sphere-of-influence business, and have the deal solely involve the USA trading the mujahideen's locations for Soviet approval of the war in Iran.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Looking forward to what's up next. I hope to be (pleasantly) surprised, as always with this story.
 
jwbonds.png

(Reposting an uncensored version of this image to make it official bonus material)

So Queen does two movies at the time, interesting, please have it as consequence that Hot Space is more succesfull and not hated by the majority of Queen fans like IOTL (Just less Dance).
What I also would like to see is Freddie Mercury not getting AIDS, or at least survive longer because he died just before the AIDS shakes came. It would be so awesome if I could have seen him in real life! If that is worthy enough to be mentioned in your updates :eek:

Anyway you got me subscribed! India is really going to be one big mess.
 
I am extremely sorry, I've just been distracted. The thread is not dead, expect a new chapter tonight. For real this time.
 
Chapter 15

Chapter 15: Eyes on Fire


Norfolk, Virginia, September 29th, 1980:

Captain Dick Marcinko sat in the waiting room of the Navy’s human resources department, waiting for his number to come up. He was supposed to have had this done months ago, but operations in Iran had kept requiring his attention. Brass had finally had enough of him riding along on dangerous ops, so they sent him home on shore leave. He never could feel truly comfortable at home, though. It was as if he could feel an itch, all over his body, a general sense that something wasn’t right. He’d gotten used to quiet nights, with the rattle of gunfire off in the distance to lull him to sleep; the mechanical hum and human life of the city felt off, and 20 years of experience had wired his body to respond to things being off defensively. He wasn’t a paranoiac, but that didn’t stop every one of his instincts from warning him that the peace of home was an enemy ruse.

“Number twenty-three, Captain Marcinko?” asked the HR rep from his desk.

“Oh, sorry,” Marcinko said, “I guess I was… lost in my thoughts.”​

Marcinko stood up from his seat and walked over to the desk. He sat on the chair in front of it.

“Now, Captain, how can I help you?”

“I’m here to have my fingerprints retaken.” Marcinko replied.

“Why is that?” asked the HR rep.​

Dick pulled off his white gloves, revealing heavily scarred palms. Some of his fingerprints were still intact, but his palm prints were almost totally obliterated.

“Damn, how did you get those?”​

---------------------------​

Washington, DC, September 21st, 1980:

Jimmy Carter and Director of Central Intelligence Stansfield Turner sat across from each other at the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. On the desk sat a briefcase; old, beaten, and badly burnt. It was open, revealing its cache of official Iranian government stationery. Some of it was charred; much of it was stained with the blood of the Ayatollah himself. Next to the briefcase sat a document, written on the Iranian stationery.

“We had our top men study Khomeini’s handwriting for months to make sure this was perfect,” said Turner. “You wanted a smoking gun tying Khomeini to the Embassy Massacre, and now you’ve got one.”

“We’re really going to do this, Stansfield?” asked Carter, “lie to the American people that a massacre was always the plan?”

“It’s not like we’ve never lied to justify military action before,” replied Turner, “Second Gulf of Tonkin incident? Never happened. Total fabrication. And that’s still a secret.”

Carter was hesitant. “But… how do we justify this to ourselves?”

“Well, Mr. President,” said Turner, “Do you want my opinion as Director of Central Intelligence, or as your friend?”

“I want your opinion as a friend, Stansfield.”

“Well, Jim, I think Khomeini had it coming. He might not have ordered the attack himself, but he never condemned the massacre or the people who perpetrated it. He called the embassy a den of spies, and continued to insist that the actions of the attackers were defensible because the embassy guards shot first.”

“Did our boys shoot first?” The President asked.​

---------------------------​

There is a firefight at the edge of Desert One. There have been many before, and there will be many to come. A young private and his comrades crouch in cover behind a wrecked school bus. He is bleeding out from a gunshot to the stomach. The pain from the stomach acid leaking out and eating at his flesh is agonizing. He cannot move, but his friends must press on. His closest friend crawls over to him.

“[I promise, we will be back for you!]” he says. The private wants to respond, but is in too much pain.​

His squadmates move out from behind the bus to move on the American cover. They too will become casualties in the ongoing effort to uproot the Americans from their base. The private clutches at his side, praying to Allah to save him. A part of him knows he will not survive, and he thinks on his regrets. Perhaps in another life, the ambitious young man could have made something of himself, but in this one, Private Ahmadinejad will die in the desert, alone, and afraid.

---------------------------​

Baltimore, Maryland, September 27th, 1980:

For an hour, the President and his challenger stood at their podiums, debating the issues facing America. The recent revelation of Khomeini’s order to kill the diplomats had galvanized the public against Iran, and the topic of Iran dominated the debate.

“Are you truly convinced, Mr. President,” asked Reagan, “That it’s in our country’s best interest to get stuck in another quagmire of a war? And a quagmire is what we’re going to get. The people of Iran do not want us there. They ousted the Shah, a symbol of Iran’s relationship with America. No one will see us as liberators, liberators from what? The government they chose?”​

The turn to speak passed to Carter.

“What would your response be, then, to the willful massacre of innocent Americans? Should I have sat idly by and allowed a murderous regime to flaunt its disregard for both international law, and life itself?” replied the President.

“Why a war, then?” asked Reagan.

“If we had simply declared victory after the death of the Ayatollah, what would it have accomplished? Khomeini was only a man, and even as we speak his replacement moves into authority. We would have affected no change to the state of affairs in Iran; we would have achieved nothing beyond sheer bloody revenge.”

The debate continued, discussing the matter of the economy. On this, Reagan destroyed Carter. He’d correctly guessed that Carter’s play would be to keep the public focused on the war, but unfortunately, the debate only had a few questions on the economy. Eventually, the debate came to a conclusion, each speaker presenting their closing argument.

“…. And so, I ask you,” Reagan said, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions 'yes', why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have.”​

The opportunity to speak fell to Carter.

“I would then ask you, my fellow Americans,” he said, “Where do you see yourselves four years from now? Do you see yourself in an America at the forefront of a global effort against terror and tyranny, or an America picking old fights, trying to pretend that it’s still the seventies, and that the real threat to America is an ideology rather than actual flesh-and-blood terrorists? Do you see an America forever perched on the edge of nuclear annihilation, always living in fear of the bomb, or an America that can work with her old enemies to face the issues most pressing to the world?...”​

---------------------------​

Dick Marcinko pulled out of the Navy office parking lot, tuning his car radio to the local news station.

“---esident Carter’s unexpectedly resolved performance at the debate has narrowed Governor Reagan’s lead considerably going into the final months of the campaign, with many opinion polls even putting the beleaguered President ahead. It’s not clear exactly how much this is due to the President’s performance, and how much is due to the recent revelation of the so-called “smoking gun memo” recovered by American special forces from Iran. At this point, the election is simply too close to call.”​

Marcinko looked down at his hands.

“You’re welcome, Mr. President,” he said with a smirk as he drove away.​

---------------------------

“I'm taking it slow
Feeding my flame
Shuffling the cards of your game
And just in time
In the right place
Suddenly I will play my ace”


-Blue Foundation​
 
Very interesting.

I wonder about the Iraqi reaction to the American invasion of Iran. Saddam was, for a time, an admirer of the Ayatollah, until relations soured in the lead-up to the Iran-Iraq War. Here, the Ayatollah's been martyred, and I think it's possible that Hussein will, without realizing that he no longer has Soviet backing, become hostile to the US.

Which does not bode well for him.

Or would he switch sides without blinking too much?
 
Very interesting.

I wonder about the Iraqi reaction to the American invasion of Iran. Saddam was, for a time, an admirer of the Ayatollah, until relations soured in the lead-up to the Iran-Iraq War. Here, the Ayatollah's been martyred, and I think it's possible that Hussein will, without realizing that he no longer has Soviet backing, become hostile to the US.

Which does not bode well for him.

Or would he switch sides without blinking too much?

Saddam will do what benefits Saddam. I fully expect him to back the Americans out of self-interest. If that means he gets some territory from Iran in the bargain, then all the better for him [but not for the Iranians or the Americans].

teg
 
Top