What if the U.S. annexed Iraq and Afghanistan?

1. You see the difference between a few tiny islands with little population in the middle of the sea and annexing an almost landlocked country with millions of people?

2. Iraqi national identity was kick-started by the American occupation (and later the fight against ISIS). Most Iraqis were united in their opposition to the US.

I see your point on the first claim, disagree on the second. Their tribal loyalties are extreme and complete, and grouping all Iraqi as one is an American delusion of convenience just as the Brits and French deluded themselves back in 1919.
 
Absolute ASB. Give thirty million foreign muslims voting rights? We can't agree on giving Puerto Rico statehood for gods sake!
 
It can be argued that scenarios requiring magical intervention are less implausible than some which don't. Or at least Chesterton's Father Brown so argued:

“Not at all,” replied the priest calmly; “it’s not the supernatural part I doubt. It’s the natural part. I’m exactly in the position of the man who said, “I can believe the impossible, but not the improbable.””

“That’s what you call a paradox, isn’t it?” asked the other.

“It’s what I call common sense, properly understood,” replied Father Brown. ”It really is more natural to believe a preternatural story, that deals with things we don’t understand, than a natural story that contradicts things we do understand. Tell me that the great Mr Gladstone, in his last hours, was haunted by the ghost of Parnell, and I will be agnostic about it. But tell me that Mr Gladstone, when first presented to Queen Victoria, wore his hat in her drawing-room and slapped her on the back and offered her a cigar, and I am not agnostic at all. That is not impossible; it’s only incredible. But I’m much more certain it didn’t happen than that Parnell’s ghost didn’t appear; because it violates the laws of the world I do understand. So it is with that tale of the curse. It isn’t the legend that I disbelieve—it’s the history.”
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/chesterton/gk/c52fb/chapter29.html

I am reminded of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s observation that the least credible part of The Devil and Daniel Webster wasn't the supernatural part but Daniel Webster arguing against the sanctity of contract...
 
Yes, this is an extremely unlikely scenario, but how unlikely depends on how you define "annexation". If the war in Afghanistan and/or Iraq were significantly more arduous or insurrection more immediate, the US might be compelled to temporarily administer those countries (as opposed to setting up a provisional government), like parts of West Germany from 1945-48. This provisional arrangement might become more permeant until the US withdrawals if a provisional government cannot be formed (such a move by the US is likely to both boost opposition in those countries and at home), and the US reputation is dragged through the mud (Russia and China allege that the US is pursuing an annexationist policy, and begin to press their claims more directly. It is very hard to envision a scenario where Iraq and Afghanistan become the 51st and 52nd state. The US would have to make them Organised Incorporated Territories (which would cause massive protests both at home and abroad) then somehow manage to get the congressional votes to annex them. Democrats would hate it (US expansionism, growing anti-war feeling in the mid-2000s) and Republicans would feel uncomfortable about admitting 70 million new inhabitants into the United States, with the potential of an exodus from the new states of Iraq and Afghanistan into the US. IF the US somehow managed to do this, insurrection against the US government would be huge and governance difficult. The US would lose all its credibility of the international stage, sacrificing all of its principles of self-determination- they would be condemned in the General Assembly and many NATO members would begin to pull out. Russia and China would escalate their aggression; if the US can just annex two countries, why can't they? The decision would be extremely unpopular in the US, especially given the vast troop commitment required to sustain it, and the collapse of US credibility would lead inevitably to more conflict. Obama is elected on a promise to pull out, which proves even more difficult- the US is even more hated, and setting up stable democratic governments even more difficult; The Taliban resurgence and ISIS' Emergence are even worse, because the events of the US annexation have radicalised the population. Obama's inability to wind down the wars mean that he is not re-elected, and Trump is elected 4 years early with promises to unilaterally pull out. Of course, this is all extremely unlikely!

The only way for Afghanistan and Iraq to become territories of the US seems to be someway back in history- perhaps the US could arbitrate between the UK and Russia by administering the buffer zone of Afghanistan between them in the late 19th century; perhaps the US, not the UK, could claim Iraq as a mandate at Versailles? In both of these scenarios, they never become 'states' of the US and gain their independence, though.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
I'll say that this idea is actually fairly realistic and very close to OTL.
The problem is that it depends how you define annex and occupy.

Everyone would agree that Vietnam used to be a French colony, right? It's right there on the map. However, it was a Protectorate. There was a compliant government in place, economic structure were reoriented toward the French state and its foreign policy was under the guidance of the French state. Is that very different to how Irak has been dealt with?

You can go one step further. Syria and Lebanon used to be French mandate countries, while Irak used to be an English mandate. Those were effectively colonies with very little self determination, because it was deemed they weren't ready to govern themselves.
You could very well imagine a technocratic government entirely made up of American specialists with local authorities being left to matters of local policing. Anything bigger than a robery, say a local insurrection, would require the intervention of American troups.

Is that so different from OTL?
It is very different. Iraq elected its own leadership and pursued its own foreign policy during the US occupation. If it was up to the United States Iraq would have been forced to take an anti-Iranian foreign policy. Vietnam was governed directly by the French, not by some local government. French bureaucrats ran Indochina.
 
Regarding Iraq, you can contrive a semi-plausible, albeit extremely unlikely, path to US annexation if, for some absurd reason it is decided post WWI to make the country a US mandate, not a British one. I don't think anyone would really want that, either British or American, so it's hard to see how and why.
But would make a start.
 
Last edited:
Top