AHC and WI: UK Votes Against Iraq War

With the latest PoD possible (has to be 2003), how can Parliament vote against the Iraq invasion? Following this, how are UK politics affected -- would Blair resign, as promised? How would UK politics be affected?

And what of the War in Iraq? How would American efforts be affected after losing such a key ally? How are the politics of the affected nations (like the US) altered? And what other butterflies are in store?

(I figured this as a companion to this thread, which seems to be about an altogether averted Iraq War)
 
Blair would almost certainly resign, and this is probably the biggest plausible (though YMMV) UK politics butterfly of the 21st century so far. The political scene right now would probably be completely unrecognisable.
 
The US's plans for war will likely go downhill. The UK provided a lot of manpower that the US couldn't replace. If the US went ahead, the military would be stretched even further than it was now.
I do think the SNP might not be as popular. (To a lesser extent, the same could apply to Plaid Cymru.)
Meanwhile, would the vote lead to a Tory PM? (How many Tories would back the war?)
 

Orsino

Banned
A defeat on the Iraq War would hurt Blair but presumably benefit the Labour Party in the long run (and hold back the Lib Dems). As the Torys would support the War at least to the same degree as Labour I can't see them gaining particularly, we'd probably have an earlier Gordon Brown and a continuation of the status quo in politics with the Lib Dems remaining a distant electoral third.

And could the USA not make up the loss of UK troops?
 
The US's plans for war will likely go downhill. The UK provided a lot of manpower that the US couldn't replace. If the US went ahead, the military would be stretched even further than it was now.
And could the USA not make up the loss of UK troops?
Probably, if they could persuade the British to take a bigger role in Afghanistan.

And how likely is that? I can't help but see this stretching the US thinner...
 

Pangur

Donor
Probably, if they could persuade the British to take a bigger role in Afghanistan.

That would be an option however would the US delay the war until forces has been moved or started anyway and then moved US forces out of Afghanistan later in the piece ?

or

Is it possible the Rumsfeld might have decided that they (the US) did not need the British?

another possibility would be that the US tries to get more troops out of say Aussie or Italy?

Either way it goes it certainly stuffs the idea of `the coalition of the willing'.
 
That would be an option however would the US delay the war until forces has been moved or started anyway and then moved US forces out of Afghanistan later in the piece?

So the invasion is delayed? That could have ripples.

Also, I'm getting some good effects, but still looking for a good cause -- what's the best PoD for this key vote to go the other way? Is it possible that Iain Duncan Smith, as big a supporter of the war as he is, might be forced to allow his backbenchers to vote their conscience?
 
With the latest PoD possible (has to be 2003), how can Parliament vote against the Iraq invasion? Following this, how are UK politics affected -- would Blair resign, as promised? How would UK politics be affected?

And what of the War in Iraq? How would American efforts be affected after losing such a key ally? How are the politics of the affected nations (like the US) altered? And what other butterflies are in store?

(I figured this as a companion to this thread, which seems to be about an altogether averted Iraq War)

Opposition support meant the motion was never seriously under threat; if it's going to fail, you need the Conservatives to oppose it (unlikely) or at least abstain. If Ken Clarke were elected as Tory leader in 2001, he might be able to get enough Tory MPs to abstain that a more badly-handled debate on the part of Blair and Straw sees the motion defeated.
 
Opposition support meant the motion was never seriously under threat; if it's going to fail, you need the Conservatives to oppose it (unlikely) or at least abstain. If Ken Clarke were elected as Tory leader in 2001, he might be able to get enough Tory MPs to abstain that a more badly-handled debate on the part of Blair and Straw sees the motion defeated.

Except that PoD is well prior to 2003. Do you think if the Tory leadership allowed its MPs to just vote their conscience (including the option to abstain), Blair would still have gotten the votes he needed?
 

Pangur

Donor
So the invasion is delayed? That could have ripples.

Also, I'm getting some good effects, but still looking for a good cause -- what's the best PoD for this key vote to go the other way? Is it possible that Iain Duncan Smith, as big a supporter of the war as he is, might be forced to allow his backbenchers to vote their conscience?

Ok. Lets see what I can come up with.

The vote went 217 against and 396 for so we need to get that to at least 307 against. Its a bit of an ask to get all the extra votes from the Labor party so we need to things I thing, more Labor and Conservatives to vote against the war. Europe jumps up as the PoD. More to the point have Blair seen as to pro US to the point where he has alienated not just enough of the Labor party but the Tory's as well. Another option would be to have a a peace camp at say Lakenheath and have US sentry shoot dead some elderly female protestors just before the vote. In this PoD Blair makes some weasel comments for the BBC and then is caught bagging the women by a microphone thats left on and it gets broadcast nationwide
 
Except that PoD is well prior to 2003. Do you think if the Tory leadership allowed its MPs to just vote their conscience (including the option to abstain), Blair would still have gotten the votes he needed?

I suppose we could have IDS brought down sooner and Clarke winning the ensuing leadership election, but yeah, it seems unlikely.

The trouble is, even if you take off all 166 Tory MPs from the government's majority, the motion (narrowly) passes. Since more Tory MPs are going to vote for than against, even assuming total abstention is a stretch. Maybe the best way is for Gordon Brown to decide his best chance to get Blair out of Number 10 is on a stretcher and resign a la Robin Cook. He probably has enough votes to kill the motion, if we assume the Tory leadership offers a free vote.
 
A good start for the "how". Does anyone have something else to add?

I'm curious myself if the US going it more alone would be more sensitive to leaving Iraq sooner rather than later -- it's quite possible Jay Garner doesn't get canned, Iraq holds summer elections, and debaathification is averted. Any thoughts on that?
 

Pangur

Donor
A good start for the "how". Does anyone have something else to add?

I'm curious myself if the US going it more alone would be more sensitive to leaving Iraq sooner rather than later -- it's quite possible Jay Garner doesn't get canned, Iraq holds summer elections, and debaathification is averted. Any thoughts on that?

If the US goes it alone and winning round one as it were then any one who challenges debaathification gets ignored. You are more likely get to an even bigger mess than we got in the OTL. Its not impossible that the US decides to square up to Syria.

Another possibility is that US makes more us of Israel in the invasion
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
And could the USA not make up the loss of UK troops?

Not easily. IIRC, the British made up nearly a quarter of the invasion force (40,000 out of a total of 220,00) and had the difficult task of securing the massive city of Basra. For the Americans to bring in troops to make up for British non-participation would be an enormous logistical task and would have taken months.

another possibility would be that the US tries to get more troops out of say Aussie or Italy?

There was no way for the Australians to provide even a fraction of the level of forces the British provided. Besides which, if the British are no-shows, I would expect the Australians to back out, too.

As for the Italians, they didn't provide troops for the initial invasion IOTL, and I think they'd be even less likely to do so ITTL.

Either way it goes it certainly stuffs the idea of `the coalition of the willing'.

Quite so. Even if militarily successful, Bush is going to pay a heavier diplomatic and political price than he did IOTL when no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq. This could doom his reelection hopes in 2004.
 
Top