lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,081 
Likes: 49,471
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 7, 2018 15:06:25 GMT
(59)July 1981: The Red Army Faction had successfully assassinated Al Haig two years ago. Following that killing of the American general who was NATO’s operational commander in Europe, the West German domestic terrorist group had seen the full weight of the state come down upon them. The West German authorities had cracked down hard, pretty damn hard too. In addition, right before he resigned as Director of Central Intelligence following events in Iran, George Bush had authorised cross-agency actions to take place from the US Intelligence Community against the Red Army Faction too in response; his successor under Ford had continued that with Kennedy’s appointee not objecting to that carrying on either. There had come mass arrests by the West Germans against their own civilians who were part of or whom supported the actions of the Red Army Faction. The detentions had been long and with much made of what charges could be brought with bureaucratic delays imposed upon court cases too. As to American actions… there had been some mysterious deaths (not inside West Germany it must be said) of certain figures, especially those to whom Haig’s assassination could be tangibly connected. Those dead at American hands – often those of outsiders contracted to carry out America’s vengeance – were no longer a threat, naturally. However, many of those detained by the West Germans were slowly released from custody. West Germany was a state where the rule of law was paramount and the accused had access to very good legal assistance. The charges against many lacked real substance and a lot of the evidence against many wasn’t all that it was cracked up to be. Prisoners were released from West German jails. They went back to the business of terrorism soon enough. While they were away, the Red Army Faction had come under a lot of pressure yet at the same time, it was lauded by some for the act of killing Haig. For those who saw West Germany as a fascist state, those who saw NATO as an oppressor & the presence of foreign troops in the country as an occupation, the killing was a glorious act. Recruitment had soared to the Red Army Faction, especially in supporting roles. There had come a few moles too though not that many. Young deluded fools had been inspired by the Haig killing to join quite the ruthless terrorist group. Throughout the year, as more experienced members were released from jail and newer recruits were given real tasks to carry out, the Red Army Faction increased its activities in West Germany. Their focus was on the state though with killings and bombings directed domestically. There were a few isolated incidents with terrorism directed against the Americans but those were generally unsanctioned acts by those still focused on the glory of killing Haig two years ago. The general theme of Red Army Faction action wasn’t to strike against the Americans, not at a time like this. If they did so, their contacts who supplied them with arms and safety across on the other side of the Iron Curtain, wouldn’t be so friendly to them. There had come congratulations from the Stasi officers who worked with the ‘anti-fascist freedom fighters’ inside West Germany for what they had done in July 1979, but a push made afterwards to not repeat that one speculator. The Stasi didn’t and couldn’t control the Red Army Faction but they held mighty sway over them. Why would the East German state intelligence authority care? Why would they stop such attacks? Because Moscow said that it wasn’t what wanted. If the Red Army Faction wanted to do such a thing, they were on their own. The Red Army Faction carried on with what it did best. They undertook arson and bomb attacks against symbolic targets of capitalism and the fascist state. Judges were shot, including those who had been involved in the sentencing of those few terrorists convicted for their part in the Haig assassination. There were bank robberies made to finance their operations. By the end July, the death toll from their attacks starting in January reached twenty. Compared to other terrorism conflicts, for example Northern Ireland, that didn’t appear to be that significant. In West Germany it was though. The bombings and shooting didn’t always kill those whom were targeted. Bystanders and others – bodyguards and drivers – lost their lives too. Red Army Faction propaganda ignored these when possible or if not claimed that such lives were taken by the state. Recruits kept coming with fools deluded into thinking that there was a fight for something worth fighting for. There was the dream of the freedom promised, apparently more freedom than they already had. Despite all the efforts of the West German state – plus the Americans from afar too – the Red Army Faction continued their terror campaign. They were growing. Could they achieve their goals? No. But they could kill a lot of people while failing to do so and bring instability if matters came to a head. Meanwhile, the Stasi kept on sending them guns while Moscow nodded approval. So the RAF is more active than in OTL. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Mar 7, 2018 17:28:56 GMT
Yes, they are. Saddam's tanks will be too.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,081
Likes: 49,471
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 7, 2018 17:37:25 GMT
Yes, they are. Saddam's tanks will be too. In 1981 the Kuwait Army consisted out of 70 Vickers main battle tanks and 175 Chieftain Mk.5s versus a lot of Iraqi T-72s tanks, wonder which is the better tank. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Mar 7, 2018 18:47:44 GMT
Yes, they are. Saddam's tanks will be too. In 1981 the Kuwait Army consisted out of 70 Vickers main battle tanks and 175 Chieftain Mk.5s versus a lot of Iraqi T-72s tanks, wonder which is the better tank. I was struggling on finding out Kuwaiti tanks. Thank you. Added this in. As to which is better, here that is rendered moot by the mass of armour unleashed in a small space in a short space of time. The 'results' will tell the Iraqis they are superior. But if they had to face a different opponent in the future, things wouldn't be as easy as what they do to little Kuwait. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Mar 7, 2018 18:48:08 GMT
(60)
August 1981:
Saddam sent his army into Kuwait. It wasn’t the walkover expected. The Kuwaitis fought back and made the Iraqi Army pay for the victory which they eventually won. The Emir had his own armed forces on alert and even while outnumbered, with Iraqi forces all over them and certain defeat coming, the Kuwaitis still fought to defend their nation. Determination and bravery were one thing, concentration of firepower was something else. Where the Kuwaitis stood, the Iraqis flattened them. Adding to the barrage of shells, rockets and falling bombs, the Iraqis added the dimension of manoeuvre to the battle in a manner which Kuwait’s army couldn’t match. The Iraqis came not just direct across the frontier on land and from the air in assault helicopters. They attacked Kuwait from the flank and behind too with airmobile and amphibious landings staged from out of the Shat al-Arab and across in southwestern Iran. The Kuwaitis couldn’t defend against such an invasion done like that. There were Iraqi regular troops who made the initial incursions, with many units drawn from those involved in the invasion of Iran last year. The Iraqis had problems with navigation, communication and discipline. Saddam ‘solved’ those problems: those who failed him were shot. Regardless of such foul-ups – and there were many embarrassing episodes – Kuwait was overrun in two days through mid-August.
The Kuwaiti Army was partially mobilised though couldn’t stop the onslaught from coming on. Their tanks were good but outnumbered: Vickers Mk.1s & Chieftain Mk.5s fought T-55s & T-72s. Their fighters were capable but again outnumbered: it was A-4 Skyhawks & Mirage F-1s against MiG-23s & some Iraqi Mirage F-1s too. The Iraqis unleashed barrage upon barrage of artillery, mortars, rockets and tactical missiles against them. They pounded Kuwait. Saddam’s Tu-22 bombers, previously used against the Kurds in northern Iraq, dropped heavy bombs across the desert where Kuwaiti troops were trying to make a fight of it. The Iraqi Army kept on coming in the face of defensive fire and the Kuwaitis ran out of room to trade for time. Kuwait City was in Iraqi hands within the first hours of the war and there were Iraqi tanks down near the Saudi border as well. These were fatal blows in the rear and which also cut off any possible line of retreat. The Iraqis had the international airport in their hands – a daring parachute assault had taken that; one undertaken with the support of Soviet and East German advisers present (and fighting) – and from there the Iraqis were soon flying combat aircraft out of Kuwaiti soil. Those Mi-24 helicopter gunships which the Iraqis had used to open-up the frontier defences ranged far afield from the airport. They were crewed by more foreign advisers (from many countries) though wore Iraqi colours and were in support of the Iraqi Army. Sometimes they shot up Iraqi soldiers too. Friendly fire that was called… unless you were on the end of it.
Iraqi commandos hunted for the Kuwaiti leadership. There was a cordon thrown around Kuwait straight away to try to stop the royal family (in which power was vested) from escaping abroad. Saddam didn’t want them to get away with the nation’s treasures too for those would soon be in the hands of Iraq. Some princes fought and died, others fought and were captured. The Emir made a daring dash for freedom across the desert and towards Saudi Arabia. The Iraqis tried to pursue him but he was gone. Most of the royal family was caught, along with Kuwait’s national treasures – gold, lots of gold – but the Emir got away. Saddam was displeased. The men with the Republican Guard (a small force) who were involved in that hunt and had failed Saddam got the same treatment as the regular military officers who failed him too: more bullets. Within a week, the majority of the Iraqi Army forces which had gone into Kuwait left and rolled back over the border while the People’s Army came down to handle occupation duties. Kuwait was stripped bare of everything of value. Resistance in any form was brutally crushed. Howls of protest came from aboard but no one lifted a finger to intervene. Saddam kept aircraft based in Kuwait and moved in missiles too. He also had a tank division down on the Saudi border though kept those men in the desert rather than in the urban areas around Kuwait City. As to that city, the former Kuwaiti capital before the country was subsumed into Iraq proper, it was given a new name: Saddam City had a far better ring to it than its previous name in the mind of Iraq’s dictator.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,081
Likes: 49,471
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 7, 2018 18:53:41 GMT
In 1981 the Kuwait Army consisted out of 70 Vickers main battle tanks and 175 Chieftain Mk.5s versus a lot of Iraqi T-72s tanks, wonder which is the better tank. I was struggling on finding out Kuwaiti tanks. Thank you. Added this in. As to which is better, here that is rendered moot by the mass of armour unleashed in a small space in a short space of time. The 'results' will tell the Iraqis they are superior. But if they had to face a different opponent in the future, things wouldn't be as easy as what they do to little Kuwait. Used this for a source (warning it will allow only a certain times per moth free viewing but if you stop it loading before the page is fully loaded it will work as well): Kuwait - Army Equipment |
|
|
|
Post by lukedalton on Mar 7, 2018 21:33:39 GMT
Yes, they are. Saddam's tanks will be too. Yep, poor Kuwait...but frankly it's not that the Iraqui had covered themselfs in glory; from the update look that they had a lot of problem and Saddam answer to this has been killing more experienced officer instead of really solve the problem. With Kuwait gone, the rest of the Arabian Penisula will be in great need of new brown pants as between that and the fate of Iran, things look a little problematic for the future. In all probability ITTL something similar to this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_dealwill happen some year earlier as the Saudi and the EAU will scrable to get a more modern armed forces, hell the British can sell to them the Shir version of the Chieftain that was ordered by Imperial Iran, maybe sparing the British Army to have to buy a developement of it under the name of Challenger instead of continue to develop the MBT-80 (a much more economical choice in the middle and long term due to sheer amount of technical problem of the tank). Maybe with the world tension growing day by day, project like the tanks OF-40 and AMX-32, or aircraft like the MB-339K will found more client |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,866
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Mar 7, 2018 22:35:53 GMT
Yes, they are. Saddam's tanks will be too. Yep, poor Kuwait...but frankly it's not that the Iraqui had covered themselfs in glory; from the update look that they had a lot of problem and Saddam answer to this has been killing more experienced officer instead of really solve the problem. With Kuwait gone, the rest of the Arabian Penisula will be in great need of new brown pants as between that and the fate of Iran, things look a little problematic for the future. In all probability ITTL something similar to this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_dealwill happen some year earlier as the Saudi and the EAU will scrable to get a more modern armed forces, hell the British can sell to them the Shir version of the Chieftain that was ordered by Imperial Iran, maybe sparing the British Army to have to buy a developement of it under the name of Challenger instead of continue to develop the MBT-80 (a much more economical choice in the middle and long term due to sheer amount of technical problem of the tank). Maybe with the world tension growing day by day, project like the tanks OF-40 and AMX-32, or aircraft like the MB-339K will found more client Quite likely, especially if Kennedy is ignoring pressure in the US to do something to at least protect the Saudis. They and the UAE have a lot of money and will be very desperate. One other thing might be if they look for allies elsewhere. Could they try linking up with Pakistan or possibly other friendly Muslim states, supplying them money in return for having them supplying troops. Risky of course as there is the chance of those foreign forces seeking to take over the country but one way for the Saudis to try and get reasonably competent and sizeable forces. [Although racial and national bigotry could still make things awkward. ] |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Mar 7, 2018 23:23:33 GMT
Pakistan would be a good idea for Saudi Arabia to get support from - in RL they had Pakistani help to end the Grand Mosque Siege; which hasn't happened here - but there has just been the coup in Islamabad. That instability will concern Saudi Arabia.
Egypt is another avenue of help that would be difficult to explore at the moment with the Sinai the focus for Sadat's army, where the Israelis still are in-place.
Instead, they will go on a spending spree and have willing suppliers. The US won't be the only ones selling to them.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Mar 7, 2018 23:25:22 GMT
(61)
September 1981:
The price of oil skyrocketed following the invasion of Kuwait. The markets reacted in panic when Saddam sent his tanks into his country’s smaller neighbour. There was some drawn back when it became apparent that Iraq wasn’t going to try to occupy Saudi Arabia and its oil fields too, though the oil price stayed high in reaction to the invasion as tension erupted across the Middle East in response to what Saddam had done. The Saudis and the Gulf Arab Monarchies were all in danger from the menace which was Saddam according to the experts /talking heads on the news. A wider war was certain to come to the region and oil supplies from those countries, maybe more, were at risk of serious disruption. Kuwaiti exports were cut off once the conflict started while at the same time other countries started imposing sanctions on Iraq in response to its aggression. There was plenty of oil available on the markets – analysts had been speculating that soon enough that matter was going to come to a head with a crash in the price – yet the reaction was almost the case that there was in fact soon to be none available. Buy, buy, buy! Traders did so and market speculators reacted to that. The crescendo of panic and foolishness hadn’t been seen since 1973. There were knock-on effects soon enough away from the trading floors with the excitable scenes there not repeated elsewhere in places where the sudden rapid rise bit hard among end users: consumers who faced retail price rises.
The blatant disregard for international law in this act of aggression made the world stand up and notice. So too did Saddam’s threats afterwards against more of his neighbours when they denounced his invasion and subsuming of Kuwait. The major shock on the international oil markets only added to the attention paid, in the West especially. The Soviets halted a US Security Council resolution condemning the act but governments around the world responded outside of that international body. Britain, Japan, West Germany and the United States all came out in condemnation. Parliaments were in their summer recesses but they soon returned to session following that break where everyone seemed to have something to say on the matter of the conflict in the Middle East and then the resulting military stand-off which followed. Trade with Iraq in terms of its oil yet also everything else was quick on the agenda: there would be sanctions imposed on Iraq. Saddam must pull his troops out of Kuwait or its oil wouldn’t be brought and nor would anything military-related (different countries had different views on what that covered) be exported to Iraq. Not all nations could agree either on how much further to react: this included pleas from Saudi Arabia for military assistance from its friends in the West.
In the White House, those pleas fell on death ears. Kennedy was not about to commit the US military to the Middle East to expel Iraq from Kuwait. The Saudis – and their supporters in Washington; no friends of the president – compared Iraq to Cuba in saying how a Soviet ally had just invaded a sovereign country. This time, the United States should respond with force. Cuba had got away with Nicaragua then Guatemala: Iraq shouldn’t get away with Kuwait. The way that the president saw it was that if Iraqi tanks went further than Kuwait, into Saudi Arabia or maybe using sea & air routes to invade Bahrain, Qatar or the United Arab Emirates (countries which most Americans hadn’t heard of), then it would be a different story. Saddam hadn’t done so. Kennedy was under no delusions about him for the brutal tyrant which he was and eagerly gave presidential approval to sanctions coming from Congress, but he wasn’t about to go to war with Iraq in a pre-emptive attack. Saudi fears weren’t worth American lives. After Kennedy made that clear, the talk was next that the United States should send military forces to the region to defend Saudi Arabia instead. There was a US Navy carrier in the Arabian Sea – it wasn’t going into the Persian Gulf itself – but no further commitment was to be sent. The attitude of the Saudis when it came to their demands infuriated the president. They wouldn’t come out and say they wanted American military support for reasons of pride and stated openly that they could defend themselves; in private they demanded troops and aircraft, all to be under their control too. The mission they proposed was insane: a line in the sand. Kennedy wouldn’t be doing as they wished. Saddam had pulled his troops back and was busy swallowing up Kuwait. Iraq’s armies weren’t marching on Riyadh or Mecca… especially not the Saudi’s oil fields. When it came to those oil fields, Kennedy’s economic agenda as president was being frustrated by the attitude of the Saudis with their oil exports. They led OPEC and were keeping oil prices high before Kuwait was invaded. That affected the American people and the national economy, all for their greed.
Kennedy’s disregard for Saudi concerns contrasted sharply with his attitude towards Israel. Israel was a friend of the United States, a country which Kennedy had an affinity for. They expressed their concern about Saddam and Kennedy listened respectfully to them. He agreed with Tel Aviv that Saddam was a threat to the general peace. Israel was ready to stand firm against Iraq and didn’t demand anything, especially not outright and with the attitude that the Saudis did. Kennedy would work always work with Israel. That approach there killed off some of the criticism about his attitude towards Saudi Arabia.
The president wasn’t the only one making the decisions when it came to the United States’ reaction to Saddam’s actions. In fact, he was making few while Congress was doing the most. Kuwait galvanised many senators and congressmen. Iraq had sided with the Soviet Union last year to help invade Iran and now was acting to attack other countries too on behalf of the Soviets. That was as clear as day to them. What was also apparent was that Iraq must be stopped. Saudi Arabia was certainly next if Saddam wasn’t halted in his ambition to take over the Middle East at the behest of Moscow. A joint House and Senate bill imposed United States sanctions on Iraq and next came a proposal to arm Saudi Arabia. The Saudis would pay for fighter jets and tanks while the manufacture of them would create American jobs. This would all be good for the United States at home and abroad. Kennedy initially opposed this but backed down soon enough as Congress got its way on sending arms – lot of them – to the Middle East. The president might not be taking things seriously but Congress was. This was a bi-partisan effort too with both Democrats and Republicans working together on something that was seen as above party politics. There was a confidence that in the end the president would agree and sign the bill went it went to him: if he didn’t, he would face further backlash from Congress than he was already getting on other matters.
Politicians in Washington weren’t happy at Kennedy’s self-declared success when he won his diplomatic coup in getting the Soviets to agree to withdraw their SS-20 missiles from Eastern Europe. That success, where he stated that he knew what he was doing in negotiating with the Soviets, had come at the cost of cancelling the GLCM deployment unilaterally and upsetting America’s allies in Western Europe. No consultation had come with Congress either before the president had done what he had. When he ‘won’, he revelled in his victory over Congress too. There was no magnanimity in the man. Kennedy was losing friends with more and more previous supporters in Congress – he’d won the Democrats the White House after a dozen years of Republican rule – turning against him. Advice was listened to by Kennedy… so he said anyway. But he refused to follow it. He knew best. Defence Secretary Muskie wasn’t as bad as some in Congress had feared he might be when in charge of the Pentagon yet Mondale was seen as a disaster: the feeling was that the secretary of state was in thrall to Kennedy’s ideas that deals could be struck with the Soviets, ones which they would honour when Congress knew they wouldn’t.
Congress got their own intelligence briefings. They knew about the fall-out with Britain and understood that while Kennedy had walked away from that now – so much for the IRA’s saviour! – he was going to hold that grudge against the Thatcher government. CIA, DIA and NSA briefings told senators and congressmen about Soviet, Cuban and Eastern Bloc military training teams in Central America with Guatemala and Nicaragua as they built new armies. Congress was also told about how Pakistan had been intimidated by Soviet threats into backing away from Afghanistan and therefore sealing the fate of the rebels there. They wanted to do something about all of this. They wanted to do something to stop Kennedy for doing more damage to long-term US interests worldwide. However, at the moment that was impossible. There was something they didn’t know though: a newspaper was sitting on yet another story about Kennedy’s private life – his zipper had come down again – which wasn’t being released. The president sure did like his distractions.
|
|
|
|
Post by lukedalton on Mar 7, 2018 23:29:52 GMT
Yep, poor Kuwait...but frankly it's not that the Iraqui had covered themselfs in glory; from the update look that they had a lot of problem and Saddam answer to this has been killing more experienced officer instead of really solve the problem. With Kuwait gone, the rest of the Arabian Penisula will be in great need of new brown pants as between that and the fate of Iran, things look a little problematic for the future. In all probability ITTL something similar to this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_dealwill happen some year earlier as the Saudi and the EAU will scrable to get a more modern armed forces, hell the British can sell to them the Shir version of the Chieftain that was ordered by Imperial Iran, maybe sparing the British Army to have to buy a developement of it under the name of Challenger instead of continue to develop the MBT-80 (a much more economical choice in the middle and long term due to sheer amount of technical problem of the tank). Maybe with the world tension growing day by day, project like the tanks OF-40 and AMX-32, or aircraft like the MB-339K will found more client Quite likely, especially if Kennedy is ignoring pressure in the US to do something to at least protect the Saudis. They and the UAE have a lot of money and will be very desperate. One other thing might be if they look for allies elsewhere. Could they try linking up with Pakistan or possibly other friendly Muslim states, supplying them money in return for having them supplying troops. Risky of course as there is the chance of those foreign forces seeking to take over the country but one way for the Saudis to try and get reasonably competent and sizeable forces. [Although racial and national bigotry could still make things awkward. ] Yeah, i was thinking something of similar, as the petroemirate had a real scarcity of manpower; but i was thinking more about Egypt as the historical regional arab power, the fact that the upstart iraqui are trying to upstage them will surely 'irritate' them, so unlike Pakistan they have some strategic incentive to play nice. Speaking of Egypt, they can use this situation to get some serious rapprochment with the west, Sadat by now want some serious advance of the peace process and all that chaos in the arab penisula, Iran and Afganistan can be what needed to have ITTL the equivalent of the Camp David Agreement...all this will mean a lot of secret agreement while in pubblic the Saudi and other will berate the Egyptian for making peace with Israel, but the presence of a very aggressive Saddam and the URSS at the border can make rethink the saudi leadership about that. An Israelian-Egyptian peace treaty can be for Kennedy the foreign success that can make people forget the previous disaster and the basis of all that are all pre-pod |
|
|
|
Post by lukedalton on Mar 7, 2018 23:52:56 GMT
I don't know if the Saudi (and the other emirate) after Kennedy (somewhat understable) treatment will be eager to buy american, in the sense that they can choose other supplier for spite; regarding Western Europe (but the same can be said for Japan and the other modern capitalistic economies) the initial buy spread by panic will probably don't last for long as after the 73 oil crisis some measure had been already taken to shield the continent economy by this type of situation, with at least 90 days of oil use in the strategic reserve and a diversification of the various supplier (ironically one of them it's the URSS).
This can be a bone for the UK, with the oil in the North Sea becoming more precious and another point of crisis between the USA and his allies, while every goverment will protest Saddam move, many will have problem with massive sanction due to the already important economic tie, the general economic situation and the oil production
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,866
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Mar 8, 2018 14:56:35 GMT
Quite likely, especially if Kennedy is ignoring pressure in the US to do something to at least protect the Saudis. They and the UAE have a lot of money and will be very desperate. One other thing might be if they look for allies elsewhere. Could they try linking up with Pakistan or possibly other friendly Muslim states, supplying them money in return for having them supplying troops. Risky of course as there is the chance of those foreign forces seeking to take over the country but one way for the Saudis to try and get reasonably competent and sizeable forces. [Although racial and national bigotry could still make things awkward. ] Yeah, i was thinking something of similar, as the petroemirate had a real scarcity of manpower; but i was thinking more about Egypt as the historical regional arab power, the fact that the upstart iraqui are trying to upstage them will surely 'irritate' them, so unlike Pakistan they have some strategic incentive to play nice. Speaking of Egypt, they can use this situation to get some serious rapprochment with the west, Sadat by now want some serious advance of the peace process and all that chaos in the arab penisula, Iran and Afganistan can be what needed to have ITTL the equivalent of the Camp David Agreement...all this will mean a lot of secret agreement while in pubblic the Saudi and other will berate the Egyptian for making peace with Israel, but the presence of a very aggressive Saddam and the URSS at the border can make rethink the saudi leadership about that. An Israelian-Egyptian peace treaty can be for Kennedy the foreign success that can make people forget the previous disaster and the basis of all that are all pre-pod Egypt is definitely a possibility but the best option, at least in Saudi eyes, might be forces from two or more such areas. As I think the Saudis would fear giving too much power to any foreign group but especially other Arabs when their so vulnerable to such military strength leading to a coup. With non-Arab groups like Pakistan there might be less threat of a coup and with multiple sources for the mercenaries you have the chance of balancing them off against each other. Plus with several governments involved in such deals, as long as the Saudis can afford it, which with the high oil prices could be quite a while it gives a broader base for political support. Of course such a multi-national force is going to be less efficient militarily in an actual conflict but that could be a price I think the princes would be happy to play. That was the basis for my thinking anyway. [IIRC I was speculating about such a think OTL after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait as something the Saudis could do if the US and other powers didn't form a coalition to drive Saddam out. This could possibly be a way, as you say of getting an Israeli-Egyptian deal as under those circumstances Israel would probably want to remove a threat to its west as it worries about whats happening to its east and Egypt also realises it can't really afford another war with Israel. You could also see, probably more in the UAE than Saudi the use of western mercenaries, especially possibly in the air force, to increase its efficiency. Also as you say the Saudis are likely to look to buy from a range of sources, not just the US. Both as a sign of resentment at Kennedy's inaction over the issue, to broaden their support and gain economic influence through such arms and other purchases. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Mar 8, 2018 18:36:22 GMT
I like this idea of a Saudi-Egyptian deal and discreet Israeli approval. I think that they could establish that line in the sand which the Saudis want and everyone will be reasonably happy with. The UAE could probably contribute too in terms of a force manned by contractors/mercs. Maybe both nations will buy Pakistani assistance too in the form of more contractors for their army.
The buying spree of military gear from many sources is something I like too.
I'm certainly going to work all this in, thank you.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Mar 8, 2018 19:26:40 GMT
(62)
October 1981:
The clandestine work undertaken in Greece throughout 1981 and culminating in the subsequent upholding of election promises on foreign affairs by the winner of October’s election wasn’t that arduous for the KGB and the Bulgarian intelligence service which was the DS. The Greek people were ready to overwhelmingly elect the socialist PASOK party and Greece itself was willing to leave both the EEC and NATO too. Soviet and Bulgarian efforts to spread influential propaganda and then give accidents to some key opponents within PASOK against the party following such a line in foreign affairs when elected were all important but only to their respective agency heads who claimed credit after October 18th. Greece didn’t need the shove in the direction that it got. The effects of this foreign interference were minimal and even if they had been exposed, that wouldn’t have changed anything. Greece and its new leader in the form of incoming Prime Minister Papandreou were determined to get out of both institutions. There was a role for Greece to play in the world outside of the customs union which was the EEC and the American-dominated NATO. Papandreou was determined to take Greece into that brave new world and his people were willing to go along with it. Glowing reports to governments in Moscow and Sofia of the success achieved in shaping public opinion and removing troublesome people who posted obstacles were overstated in terms of their affect. Regardless, the spy chiefs patted themselves on the back and got praise from their political masters. Greece meanwhile did its own thing once PASOK won the election and started to form a new government.
Papandreou publicly told both organisations of the intent for a Greek Withdrawal from each. His country had only formally joined the EEC back in January yet PASOK had opposed that then and campaigned on a removal of the country once they were in power. The trading bloc wasn’t one which suited Greece and there had already been disputes between the last government and Brussels when it came to financial aid for Greece. Being part of the EEC was a restriction on Greece’s economy, as far as PASOK saw it, and would only damage the country. The ideas for a transformation in Greek society with the national adoption of socialism when it came to wealth distribution weren’t compatible with the EEC either: Greece would leave before it was punished by Brussels for doing so in a humiliation which Greece wouldn’t want to see. When it came to NATO, Greece had been a member since the Fifties yet there had always been a rocky relationship with that organisation and Greece when the country was under various governments: PASOK and its predecessor movements of socialist parties had been opposed to NATO from the start. It was the Americans mainly which upset the Greek people. They had supported the Regime of the Colonels which had led Greece from ’67 to ’74. It was their interference which had brought about so much pain and humiliation on the Greek people. Talking of humiliation, what had NATO done right before the dictatorship ended? They had taken Turkey’s side when the Turks had invaded Cyprus! Turkey was always the enemy for Greece no matter what. The last government had removed Greece from NATO’s military command structure afterwards though PASOK had long argued that there should be a full withdrawal from NATO as a whole. Greece had re-joined the command arrangement only last year and soon enough been humiliated again when Turkey was favoured over Greece by the rest of NATO, especially the Americans. No more would the Greek people stand for this. NATO was seen as a hostile foreign domination with its interference in Greek affairs, the military bases on sovereign Greek soil and the support it always had for Turkey.
Papandreou had been jailed during the dictatorship and was lucky to have not been killed: the senior CIA officer in Greece, who supported the Regime of the Colonels, had urged the dictatorship to do that but they hadn’t. Another American had saved his life and allowed for him to be exiled to Sweden before democracy returned to Greece. Papandreou knew America – he’d lived there – and knew that they weren’t the great evil as others might wish to portray them. Their interference in Greek affairs through NATO appeared to have no end in sight unless Greece left that organisation. The Turkish issue bothered him less than it did many of his people; what angered him about the Americans was how they tried to manage Greece’s foreign policy away from Europe and NATO. He had no delusions about the Soviet Union yet saw them just the same as the United States in how they wanted every country, Greece included among so many more, on their side or would deem that nation their enemy. Greece under Papandreou would do things differently. There were other countries around the world who Greece could work with. Greece First would come after Greek Withdrawal.
These promised actions from the new government in Athens had affects elsewhere. The EEC and NATO each had warning of what was coming and efforts were tried to keep Greece in both. Those were to no avail. Even if Western intelligence agencies had tried double what the KGB and DS claimed as successes, they couldn’t have kept the country in those alliances. Knowing that Greece under Papandreou would do when they won gave some time to prepare. The EEC made sure that it was ready to formally begin the process of letting Greece go once Athens made that official and support for a united front approach was made across Western Europe. Greece would get no special favours and in their leaving, they would do little damage to the EEC apart from prestige. NATO tried a similar approach. Greece was warned of the dangers of being outside of the defensive alliance in public; in private NATO leaders made preparations for that withdrawal as well as working to keep the rest of the member states of the alliance committed to mutual defence. What NATO failed to do though was to reassure the Spanish that NATO wasn’t an organisation soon to fail and therefore not one which Spain should join.
The Spanish were due to sign articles of accession to NATO in the New Year so they could formally enter the alliance in mid-1982. This was all part of the follow-up to Spain’s transition to democracy after the demise of Franco where they would join international organisations such as NATO first and then the EEC in the coming years. Opposition to both, especially NATO, was strong in Spain though. The country’s centre-right government looked likely to lose next year’s election to either the socialists directly or a coalition of socialists and communists. The intention by the government had been to join NATO regardless of that public opposition because they believed it could be shaped after joining. That election had yet to be lost, maybe it could be won… The Spanish watched as NATO argued with Europe on one side and the United States on the other. The Greek situation before the election there was monitored as well. In Madrid, the ruling UCD was a coalition rather than a lone party and from within there came fears of what the socialists in the PSOE – let alone the communists! – would do once in power. Maybe if Spain didn’t join NATO at this time, the UCD could stay in office? There was a public wait until the situation in Greece turned out like it did yet the decision was made beforehand in private. A week after the Greek election, Spain informed NATO that Spain entry into NATO was being postponed. Not cancelled, just delayed for the time being. Greece was out of NATO and Spain wasn’t coming in: the postponement from Madrid was cancellation no matter what was said.
|
|
