Possible, but from what I've read Eisenhower was pretty determined not to get US troops involved long term in Lebanon.
Congo seems like a distinct possibility. In the USA, being involved in a war against an African enemy is likely to exacerbate racial tensions beyond even what they were in the 60s OTL.
Congo Crisis seems the most likely. U.S. involvement was scaling up there at the same time it was in Vietnam. It's just that the Western puppet government won quickly in the Congo and not in Vietnam.
It could have gone very differently if Lumumba had escaped to his home turf of Stanleyville. He wasn't a communist, but at this point Lumumba would have had little choice but to turn to the Soviets for aid.
Lumumba would have been extremely dangerous to the West, and as capable and sympathetic as he was, would have made for a long and nasty conflict across the world.
President George Wallace(or Strom Thurmond or any other hardline segregationist) elected???This is a particularly important factor. Lumumba made Castro look like... well, Castro. Along with all the cross-cutting factors you had in Congo/Zaire (prior to his death IOTL) easily one of the two or three most intelligent, charismatic, and capable hard-left leaders anywhere, especially in the Sixties. (In the Sixties he may be top of the pops himself.) If he slips the Tshombe/CIA noose there's an awful lot of canopy under which he can hide, and galvanize essentially ethnic and territorial movements in favor of ideological goals. That has all kinds of ripple effects, including US governments who work relentlessly to crush it which could, in reaction, make anti-Vietnam sentiment at home look tame.
There are several near misses IOTL. The most direct is probably that the Belgian intervention in Stanleyville et al. in November '64 (Operation Dragon Rouge) was originally designed and planned as a US op. Crush the Simbas, save endangered white folks (and the foreigners there truly were endangered, the murders were brutal), shift the political balance, all the kinds of positive feedback that encourage decision makers to keep poking the bear. But if Lumumba's still out there, very different picture. With the Simbas out of the game due to foreign action, easier to pull together other disparate interests in an anti-foreigner movement marinated steadily in People's Revolution. And the borders with Angola and soon-to-be-Zambia are so porous as to be nonexistent. Also in terms of force deployment across real estate, the Vietnamese DMZ is about the size of a mine owner's backyard along the southern Congo border. Throw in the Ho Chi Minh trail and it's still a fraction of the ground to cover in Congo.
to help Apartheid South Africa against the Cubans?There is the Angolan Civil War to participate...
to help Apartheid South Africa against the Cubans?
Indeed. The "stopping Communism" argument works well here.At that point, to help NATO ally Portugal (and the odious Estado Novo who still ran the shop in Lisbon at that point) hang on to their overseas empire. If you're a Bircher et al. doing a solid for apartheid is just a side benefit.
There is the Angolan Civil War to participate...
President George Wallace(or Strom Thurmond or any other hardline segregationist) elected???
Yugoslavia going worse and the U.S. intervening under Clinton against Serbia on the ground might work, but that is unlikely.Operation Downfall actually happening or an Iran War occurring in either the 1980s or the 21st century seems to the best bet.
Maybe have Indonesia go communist and have a war be fought there? Another conflict might be a war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s or even prior to that.
Yugoslavia going worse and the U.S. intervening under Clinton against Serbia on the ground might work, but that is unlikely.
Bush I, Dole, Tsongas, Gore, a different 90's Dem, Perot etc....Doesn't have to be Clinton, someone else could do that.
At that point, to help NATO ally Portugal (and the odious Estado Novo who still ran the shop in Lisbon at that point) hang on to their overseas empire. If you're a Bircher et al. doing a solid for apartheid is just a side benefit.
At that point, to help NATO ally Portugal (and the odious Estado Novo who still ran the shop in Lisbon at that point) hang on to their overseas empire. If you're a Bircher et al. doing a solid for apartheid is just a side benefit.
The US policy was that the best way to stop the spread of communism was to get the colonial powers out of Africa and Asia and then the US become the locals “friend” and “savior”.
The only thing the US did for Portuguese was to kick them in the teeth and pressure them out.
NATO has a policy that only Portuguese territory north of the Cape Verde islands would be considered part of NATO. Rest was Portuguese problem.
Sorry they never supported Portuguese. That just a fairy tale the Americans say. They did not sell Portuguese weapons. Talk to the Portuguese and they tell you. The Americans wanted Portuguese out ASAP so they could exploit Africa themselves.At what point did the U.S. start pressuring Portugal out of Africa? With a POD in 1961, could we see the U.S. supporting Portugal in Angola against a "Communist" insurgency?
Imagine a situation where black American draftees are told they have to go get shot in the jungle to defend white colonial rule. The knock-on effects for U.S. politics are downright chilling.
Also, Nyerere in Tanzania is a potential problem. I can see the U.S. overthrowing him in favor of a more cooperative government.