Feasibility check: Australia refuses to send troops to Iraq, leading to a diplomatic spat.

[Rosencrantz]

The Iraq War would have gone on with or without Australia. What POD would have Australia stay out of the war?

Would the ANZUS treaty survive or would the Americans not care? Would they kick us out of the F35 program? Would they call us mean names? Discuss.

 

[Dominic]

Under Howard it's very unlikely that we'd stay out. Howard has a very strongly romanticised view of Anglosphere relations and would only stay out with a serious risk present, which of course there wasn't or else the war would not have happened. Perhaps a different Liberal would be less eager, I honestly couldn't guess on Costello. The various possible incarnations of Labor have more plausibility... Beazly might have criticised from opposition but I wonder if he would have followed through with those words. Fundamentally Iraq was an ideal war from the Australian establishment's perspective. Low-risk, strategically irrelevant, and 100% ideological which is perfect when your goal is to align with an ally on emotional terms.

Had we stayed out though, ANZUS would survive. Unlike Australian leaders the US has a very rational view on the alliance: it preserves Pine Gap, bolsters intelligence, and in the 2000's appeared to support the US position in Asia. Had we stayed out we would have suffered very little. The F-35 program would've been fine, the US likes money. They might've called us mean names, but I doubt it. It was not the Trump era. Perhaps they'd have been a little difficult on intelligence matters in some areas that we don't hear about, but fundamentally our interests would continue to align on intel matters and we were of course still in Afghanistan with them.

 

[GSD310]

Beazley being the PM at the time of the Iraq War? His americaphile instincts sympathizes with the US but he’d probably lose the party’s left.

 

[Rosencrantz]

Or failing this, are there any other way ANZUS/Aus-US relations might collapse post 1990? We've been practically joined at the hip since the end of the cold war.

 

[Nathan Bernacki]

Would the ANZUS treaty survive or would the Americans not care?

The Americans would be off their gourd to dissolve the ANZUS Treaty. We are critical to America's presence in the Pacific Ocean.

 

[Dominic]

Or failing this, are there any other way ANZUS/Aus-US relations might collapse post 1990? We've been practically joined at the hip since the end of the cold war.

Yes. The PRC invades Taiwan and Australia chooses to not intervene, an entirely plausible outcome under any non-Abbott government. This would directly violate ANZUS, and would enrage the US. It would also likely precipitate a slow drawdown of American forces from Asia unless they won a surprisingly convincing victory.

 

[Rickshaw]

Howard was a fool as far as matters of defence went. He once promised on radio that Australia would send a mythical "armoured Brigade Force" to invade Iraq with the Yanks. Everybody upon hearing that news was rather surprised. We didn't have an "armoured Brigade Force" to send. It would have meant sending all of 1 Armoured Regiment plus three of the APC regiments, plus three infantry battalions and artillery. Australia would have been defenceless.

He was though a smart politician. He was in Washington for the annual A**US conference on 11 September 2001. He was walking along the Potamac River when the plane hit the Pentagon. He immediate requested a conference with Bush junior. This was despite the A**US conference not mentioning the East Coast of the USA, and there was no threat in the Pacific region. Bush greatly appreciated Howard's efforts. He called Howard "the man of steel".

Howard wanted to be involved in the invasion of Iraq and when he was only offered the use of the SASR and the Commandos, he said they should be withdrawn from Afghanistan and given over to the US operation against Iraq. The Yanks were quite appreciative of them and the handful of F/A-18s and the Frigate that were dispatched.

However would not go. It was not a part of his make up. He was truly an Americanophile. He was under no illusions that Australia would go.

 

[marathag]

The Americans would be off their gourd to dissolve the ANZUS Treaty. We are critical to America's presence in the Pacific Ocean.

With the USSR tits up and China friendly with Deng, early '90s US would ask "do they really matter? Guess not", coming after NZ giving the US the finger.

 

[Fred the Great]

They might've called us mean names, but I doubt it

I agree both for the reasons you outlined but also because they already had another country to call mean names - the French. And I doubt Americans would see Australians quite the same way as they did / do the French to get on board some anti-Aussie backlash.

 

[Fred the Great]

Howard was a fool as far as matters of defence went. He once promised on radio that Australia would send a mythical "armoured Brigade Force" to invade Iraq with the Yanks. Everybody upon hearing that news was rather surprised. We didn't have an "armoured Brigade Force" to send. It would have meant sending all of 1 Armoured Regiment plus three of the APC regiments, plus three infantry battalions and artillery. Australia would have been defenceless.

My recollection of the armoured brigade chatter is a little hazy, but I think there was more a misunderstanding there on someone else's behalf and he didn't knock it on the head. Do you have a link to the interview? I can't seem to find it.

In terms of the mythical armoured brigade, well yeah we had a mechanised brigade, which was not up to the standards of our allies, but it does technically satisfy the nomenclature - barely though. The Army would have had a hard time deploying it. Would have been very difficult logistically and would have been more vulnerable than comparative formations. This would confine it to more a secondary role.

Yet your comments regarding "plus three of the APC regiments, plus three infantry battalions and artillery" are a little off. The Army didn't have an APC regiment. It had one APC squadron and one mechanised infantry battalion - both with upgraded M-113s. Besides this though, you wouldn't need said units to make up an "armoured" brigade. More commonly such a brigade would have three maneuver elements, two tank and one mech infantry or one tank and two mech infantry, plus an artillery regiment (generally with SP guns) and CS / CSS elements.

A hypothetical "armoured" brigade deployment could have been based around 1st Brigade with 1st Armoured (two sabre squadrons), a reinforced 5/7RAR (with four rather than the standard three mechanised infantry companies), and 2nd Cavalry with the ASLAV. The first two could operate as infantry-tank battle groups and obviously the latter's role is reconnaissance. The shortcomings would include artillery - relying on towed guns - and combat engineering - no armoured engineering capability even now. But, if the challenges could be overcome, you could see a role for this formation as a welcome addition to the USMC force.

Much too great a commitment for Australia in the circumstances though, especially when all that was really required was enough to send the political message that we were there.

 

[Riain]

I wouldn't get too hung up on Howards (mis)use of nomenclature, he was not an expert and wasn't talking to experts.

A hypothetical "armoured" brigade deployment could have been based around 1st Brigade with 1st Armoured (two sabre squadrons), a reinforced 5/7RAR (with four rather than the standard three mechanised infantry companies), and 2nd Cavalry with the ASLAV.

This is close enough for me to call an Armoured Brigade.

 

[Fred the Great]

I wouldn't get too hung up on Howards (mis)use of nomenclature, he was not an expert and wasn't talking to experts.

Yeah I'm fairly sure he didn't introduce the reference in the discussion. It does show his lack of innate knowledge, as Rickshaw is saying, in that he didn't immediately shoot it down, I mean, take it to an extreme, if the question was: "PM, might we send a division to Iraq?", you'd like to think he would have said no. I don't believe he overly entertained the "armoured brigade", but would be interested to see the clip again.

This is close enough for me to call an Armoured Brigade.

The nomenclature is a bit funny around this, as I'm sure you'd be aware. Like, the US Army has Infantry (Mech) divisions that are little different to its Armored divisions. Then you have 1st Cavalry Division, which is basically an armoured division.

 

[Rickshaw]

I don't have a reference but it was Howard who introduced the term "armoured brigade group" into the discussion IIRC. He was badly caught out as he should have been.

 

[Fred the Great]

I don't have a reference but it was Howard who introduced the term "armoured brigade group" into the discussion IIRC. He was badly caught out as he should have been.

Yeah that really doesn't accord with my thinking. I remember thinking whoever did say it initially was rather uninformed. Though when I stopped and thought about it I realised it was possible to send a "heavy" brigade - just not politically plausible. Not sure if I'd say it was less plausible than the proposition of this thread though. Not joining a military adventure involving the US and Britain would be very out of character for us.

 

[overoceans]

Under neither Liberal nor Conservative governments did Canada send troops to Iraq. And while I may very well be forgeting some pennyante diplomatic or even economic retaliation, relations with the USA remained pretty much the same as they'd always been. I'm not an expert on the antipodes, but I'd expect things to be roughly the same there.

 

[Rickshaw]

Yeah that really doesn't accord with my thinking. I remember thinking whoever did say it initially was rather uninformed. Though when I stopped and thought about it I realised it was possible to send a "heavy" brigade - just not politically plausible. Not sure if I'd say it was less plausible than the proposition of this thread though. Not joining a military adventure involving the US and Britain would be very out of character for us.

Unfortunately, yes it would be. What I'd like to happen is the next time the Oval Office calls the Lodge, I'd be a little slower in picking up the phone. The US hasn't done too badly from our alliance. Time they reciprocated and we got some forces the next time we called for them. INTERFET was a joke as far as the Yanks were concerned. They sat off shore and did SFA apart from some helicopter flights. We managed without them but if the Indonesians were a little less reluctant to leave, things could have become a little hairy. As Arthur Wellesley remarked after Waterloo, it was a "close run thing."

 

[Fred the Great]

We managed without them but if the Indonesians were a little less reluctant to leave, things could have become a little hairy. As Arthur Wellesley remarked after Waterloo, it was a "close run thing."

That's why 1 Squadron was at Tindal, and our other weapons of war were ready to deploy too. But the Marines were, as you said, not far away, and neither was a carrier group, as I recall. Wouldn't be surprised if the Americans offered but it was felt that for political reasons it was better they took a lower profile.

 

[Anime Ninja]

Under neither Liberal nor Conservative governments did Canada send troops to Iraq. And while I may very well be forgeting some pennyante diplomatic or even economic retaliation, relations with the USA remained pretty much the same as they'd always been. I'm not an expert on the antipodes, but I'd expect things to be roughly the same there.

That was my first thought when I started reading this.

Canada did not really participate in the Iraq war. There was some noise from the US about Canada not helping friends/allies and such but nothing really changed in the big picture.

 

[Riain]

Canada's security and alliance with the US are vastly different to Australias. There would be few scenarios where Canadas security is directly threatened the the US wouldn't be directly involved. In contrast the US is not as closely linked to Australian security, so we have to work harder at the relationship.

 

[Sam R.]

This answer is predicated on direct life experience of second US-Iraq, which we seem to be discussing. Rather than first US-Iraq which lies in the gap between what's been written up historiographically when I was doing undergraduate, and my life.

so we have to work harder at the relationship.

We *believe* we have to work harder at the relationship. Ming's begging is a useful example. The other, persistent, question is while we keep paying the premiums on the insurance, we've been Singapored before. INTERFET isn't the best example to my mind because that was a very tidy matter of Indonesia getting tired. The trots slogan of the day was, "Free East Timor," and to my mind Howard said, "Yes please, I'll take two if you've got them." The yanks could quite handily look at the exchange of allied supremacy over East Timor and frankly not give a rats arse about the frictional costs in blood because the social Catholics nudged out the catholic Socialists and both of their mates ended up with the oil.

A slightly more sensible analysis would be that the insurance policy will *never* be paid out, but that the costs of payment are worth the maintained relationship in other situations given the alignment of Australia's ruling class and political elite with broad US interests. With the growing access and exposure of Australian higher education, primary industry and mining capitals to Chinese capital interests, and the latter two to Japanese capital interests; with Hawke-Keating's neoliberal restructuring making Australia's economy the poker machine of G20 economies, we're not open to the economic discipline New Zealand faced and produced for itself. Australia is more than Dairy Farmers writ large: its also coal, ferrous, non-ferrous, and really bad BCom degrees. The United States has had very limited capacities to discipline Australia, other than, for example, suggesting to a self-important drunkard that he have lunch with the wrong person first during a constitutional crisis. And yet, even then, they didn't actually invest properly in the every day cultural-and-scientific-exchange front organisations for an allied state they were seriously worried about. The standard of CIA cultural front organisations in Australia was even at the height of the Cold War funding for the same, pathetic.

Which, to reign in examples, is to restate: why would the level of Australian work affect the relationship, when the United States fundamentally doesn't care. ANzUS hasn't yet changed its name, that gives you a hint about the level of effort. There are still five eyes despite Aircraft carriers having to travel a bit further for legal sex workers. Benign neglect. Eager pre-compliance. That's the relationship.

>Australia refuses to send troops to Iraq, leading to a diplomatic spat.

Well my first thought is, Australia's troops refused for Iraq, leading to a diplomatic dummy spit from Australia. Sure there were nice ironies with guarding the JSDF Engineers, but I'm not sure America wanted much more than the usual stamp in the UN and landlines out of satellite uplinks. Could well have been a 1964 mark two, "Who wants to come play in Iraq? Don't they have Bouganville and Fiji and the Solomans to deal with?— Gary, how are they doing with Bouganville, they completely fucked it up, and the media went to town on them? Jesus christ we don't want them anywhere near this."

yours,
Sam R.