Fair point, didn't take that into account. There probably aren't many things in the world by this point that Nixon has a lower opinion of than Democrats.
World Without Watergate-Revamped.
- Thread starter Realpolitik
- Start date
Realpolitik
Banned
Probably. He thinks that Reagan might blow up the world, but he also thinks that of Scoop Jackson and the hawkish Dems, and he has more of a chance at influencing Reagan.
And the "kumbaya foreign policy" people? Forget it. "At least the hawks have a pair".
Nixon deep down knows that he and Kissinger have done a rather weird brand of foreign policy that was only politically tolerated by "the establishment" in the circumstances of 1968, and that eventually, someone else would take over. He wanted Connally or even Rocky over Reagan*, but when push comes to shove...
Funniest thing. Even after Reagan became a GOP God, Nixon still had rather mixed feelings about him, according to his comments in the early 90s. I think he might have seen him as a bit of a JFK for Republicans, and that might have influenced him.
I think there needs to be contingent of troops from ''free nations'' to bolster the South Vietnamese defensives and to provide confidence to South Vietnam that they aren't in this all alone. Getting troops from fellow anti communist Asian countries shouldn't be much of a problem. South Korea would be gladly be happy to assist, ROK troops during the war were known for their unrelenting cruelty but effective nonetheless.
People tend to forgot a large part of ARVN were just poorly equipped irregular forces, unfit to battle the PAVN.
People tend to forgot a large part of ARVN were just poorly equipped irregular forces, unfit to battle the PAVN.
Excellent update RP. I can't say I've ever thought much about First Ladies but Pat seems very interesting. How much of her inner monologue is based on 'fact' over assumption? I can't imagine being the gal on Tricky Dicky's arm is much fun, as you have written. Really I've always been wary of Nixon is evil stuff but everything I've read and seen makes me loath a good deal of the people around him.
Reagan in '76. Without the Hostage Crisis and the economy being quite so buggered I'm fascinated to see his election approach. Also I wonder how the public see all this.
As to the Democrats - I could see several candidates who would be considered strong opponents to Reagan depending on which issues grab people more. Jerry Brown as a proto-New Democrat could capture the idea of slimmer government, while Scoop can take Reagan in terms of hawkishness. Even though people say Carter needed Watergate, in an atmosphere of malaise and with a firmer grasp of the primaries than others he could very well squeak through as the outsider.
Reagan in '76. Without the Hostage Crisis and the economy being quite so buggered I'm fascinated to see his election approach. Also I wonder how the public see all this.
As to the Democrats - I could see several candidates who would be considered strong opponents to Reagan depending on which issues grab people more. Jerry Brown as a proto-New Democrat could capture the idea of slimmer government, while Scoop can take Reagan in terms of hawkishness. Even though people say Carter needed Watergate, in an atmosphere of malaise and with a firmer grasp of the primaries than others he could very well squeak through as the outsider.
I had no idea about President Nixon's wife, she sounds like an impressive woman in her own right.
As for other South East Asian nations to provide support / troops to South Vietnam:
As for other South East Asian nations to provide support / troops to South Vietnam:
- Thailand - the easiest country to obtain soldiers from, but would require economic assistance to some degree.
- Indonesia - Very interesting option, they originally came close to deploying a battalion to Cambodia post 1972!
- Malaysia - difficult due to their own counter insurgency, but training teams may be an option. The Iban apparently have a similar language to the Montangnards.
- Singapore - possible, but the cagey PM would extract a hefty price.
- Philippines - again a possibility, from memory I believe that President Regan certainly had a reporie with President Marcos. May be difficult due to domestic concerns at the time.
- Taiwan - Smaller deployment is possible.
Thanks for answering my comment.
Very effective writing on the Pat Nixon vignette.
What's so tragic is that with politics becoming so $%^& personal is the collateral damage to the kids, S/O's and friends. TheS/O's and friends are adults who volunteer. The kids just get dragged along.
As to finding a coalition of the willing to put troops in harm's way, the US needs to pony up in $$$ and gear and disabuse themselves of being in charge of it.
I can' t imagine sorting the cultural, logistical, and doctrinal cluster-%$^& between ARVN, ROK, ROC, Aussie, Thai, Filipino, and Indonesian troops if ASEAN tries to put it together. YMMDV.
Very effective writing on the Pat Nixon vignette.
What's so tragic is that with politics becoming so $%^& personal is the collateral damage to the kids, S/O's and friends. TheS/O's and friends are adults who volunteer. The kids just get dragged along.
As to finding a coalition of the willing to put troops in harm's way, the US needs to pony up in $$$ and gear and disabuse themselves of being in charge of it.
I can' t imagine sorting the cultural, logistical, and doctrinal cluster-%$^& between ARVN, ROK, ROC, Aussie, Thai, Filipino, and Indonesian troops if ASEAN tries to put it together. YMMDV.
Realpolitik
Banned
In the 60s, that was largely true. By 1973, ARVN was an American style fighting force whose main problems were a) being reliant off American funding and the promise of American aid if the North broke the agreement and b) having problems in the officer corps. The VC was not a problem anymore and the Saigon government controlled most of the country. A lot of what will happen is somewhat dependent on what occurs in Washington, as always. Don't forget, a lot of anti-Vietnam measures were intimately related to the fact that Dick Nixon was in office, and without Watergate and with a different political environment...
The soldiers were just fine because that was the main focus of Vietnamization. It's higher up where the problems lie. Money, weapons, hyperinflation, corruption. And that's what it's geared for.
Well... they were truly dedicated to each other. Anybody who saw Dick at the funeral won't doubt that. But yeah, I agree with you. Pat did not trust a lot of the people around her husband in the slightest by 1972, and her gut instincts were right a good percentage of the time.
The Democratic ticket is going to be fun. Let's just leave it at that.
Soldiers aren't really what is needed by 1973. What is needed is money and economic help, especially after the oil embargo. As well as advisors who are far more willing to get brutal with the higher ranks than the USA was. Aka, the ROK.
Thailand is easy. They are scared to death of what is going on in Cambodia and are already "involved" there.
Japan's economy is booming and they've got money to spare.
Suharto is busy in East Timor, but he is willing to help out with oil. Don't forget, by the 80s, Indonesia was a significant oil exporter, and one of South Vietnam's biggest needs is that.
LKY was sympathetic to Thieu and agreed to "help out" by inviting him to Singapore in April of 1973. He was fully supportive of anti-Communist efforts in Indochina. He's in.
The PI is more a conduit point than anything.
A key, key factor is China, as Park knows. It's not just North Vietnam who they are getting pretty alienated from.
Park has his own motives for doing this. From what I know of the man, he probably could see the future quite clearly. If he can start making a partnership with the "New China" and expand his influence abroad, the less and less Kim Il Sung will matter. Would be pretty interesting to see Korean influence in Indochina, especially in the event of a unified Korea...
And don't worry. We are. The future neocons and Jackson Democrats, who are becoming something of a serious force on Capitol Hill around 1974-1975, are making sure of it. As for the rest of Congress, Koreagate was more successful OTL. Thank God for a few lovable crooks with hearts of gold, particularly in Texas with Connally's boys(LBJ *loved* Park, and a big factor in Texas's growth was military money, and a lot of that goes to Korea...).
Thanks. I was worried that I wrote that badly.
Yeah, I was debating this, but Nixon just does not strike me as the type to give in to what a bunch of "McGovernite peaceniks" want geopolitically. It's not a coalition of the willing. It's not even troops. What it is are money and supplies, or just being a conduit for that since America can't "officially" do anything anymore. I remember one ARVN soldier describing how the army couldn't afford bullets to shoot after funds were cut. It was an American based army with all the weaknesses that implies-a reliance off of expensive equipment.
And that's basically what Nixon did. A lot of Nixon's Congressional enemies suspect what is going on, of course, but really can't do anything about it-the public doesn't want to think about Vietnam any more, and they are rapidly getting more hawkish, as seen by the GOP nomination now that Vietnam is receding somewhat. The genius of Ronald Reagan was that he instinctively realized that America wanted big showy victories and bombings and "strength" without long term ground commitments. Aid cuts to South Korea or Thailand will never seriously be discussed without Watergate and the subsequent anti-anti-Communist mood.
Thank goodness for loopholes.
Next, the Nasrallah post. I have it written up.
Last edited:
Realpolitik
Banned
“Our objectives are as follows:
1. Full diplomatic recognition of Israel by its neighbors and Israeli coexistance with Arab states.
2 . Secure borders for Israel
3. Return to Arab states of territories captured in 1967
4. Self-government for the Palestinians.
We will work to create a Palestinian state. 1967 borders are to be the rough guideline of the peace, but not an exact one. Above all, the ticking time bomb that is the Palestinian question must be fixed before another Yom Kippur War occurs. There must be no armed Palestinian state at the gut of the State of Israel. To this end, a specially demilitarized zone is to be proposed on the border of Israel and the prospective Palestinian state as an amendment to UN Resolution 242. The PLO must give up the use of violence and terrorism. The government of the Soviet Union has stated their acceptance of the proposed agreement and their commitment to a stable Middle East as part of improvement of US-Soviet relations. If Israel agrees to return the occupied territories and commence relations with other Arab States, we should embark on a mutual security treaty with Israel stipulating that a conventional attack on Israel will be treated like an attack on the United States. The United States needs to craft additional measures to ensure that the loss of land would not mean a loss of security for Israel, and it to this end that the demilitarized zone is proposed. Land for peace is the formula to be used, as the Israeli government has realized that annexing Arab lands will only lead to more problems in the future. To achieve Palestinian self-government, local Palestinian autonomy in association with King Hussein of Jordan in the West Bank phased in over a multiyear transition period. We should engage in broad discussions with each side to explore their ideas for an adequate security framework. We should then determine what kind of settlement would be fair and feasible. Only after we identify the general outlines of such an agreement should we embark on the contentious task of crafting provisions and language for a formal treaty, and we have done the most important steps here today."
Official Press Statement of President Nixon, in part, on the Camp David Accord, March 16th, 1975.
“We did it, Henry. 5 for 5.* Let's do the rundown-we've flipped Egypt and Jordan to our side. Sadat's having a helluva time, we were wrong about him, weren't we? Mentioned he might go talk in front of the Knesset. Syria is getting the Golan Heights back and values that more than the Palestinians, and we are entering a more balanced relationship with them, getting them into a neutral zone between us and the Russians. So all he has left are the Sauds, the Iraqis, and the Gulf Monarchies. The Iraqis are a threat and remain a Soviet stalwart, but the Saudis we have made some interesting inroads with. They have proven to be pragmatic-very fortunate that we didn't need to resort to THAT after leaning on Meir, eh?[3] It's the most goddamn thing, for a little trouble with the oil, we will get a peace that people said couldn't be done, and maybe independence from that. They can't bring themselves to admit it.
I meant what I said about Israeli security, of course. We can't have them at the point of a bayonet. We are helping them out on security-they are useful in helping tip the balance in our favor against the Soviets. The Arabs have got to understand not to fuck with them after the agreement. This region is not one where you can trust anybody. Got to be tough. Behind them is the US. They have to tolerate each other sooner or later, like us and the Russians, the alternative is far worse.
Yeah, Henry, I know, that son of a bitching[1] Palestinian issue. US diplomacy is the only way they'll get their autonomous state, not Soviet arms. He's run his race. I'm presenting him (Arafat) with a fait accompli. I've got no objections to squeezing him either, not after his little stunt in Munich**. Fuck his little right of return, his people are tired and just want a home of their own, and if he doesn't take our publicized offer to talk about the state, who knows? If he gets shot, that's too damn bad... He'd better realize this-his allies have realized the reality of Israel. If we don't get two states now, we never will. For if we don't get a deal soon, those right wingers in Israel might win an election and not have to focus on their other Arab neighbors, and I'm not taking his shitty ass rocket throwing movement over them now that the important Arab states are making peace.*** I'm sure he knows it too. I feel it's coming. You could see it when we were there, the old secular socialist Israeli ideal is beginning to die.
Anything I'm missing, Henry? That dumb motherfucker in Libya?**** What, no, you said Lebanon? Well, Assad mentioned something about it blowing up, but better he's mucking about there than him using Soviet weapons to destroy Israel. Congress will whine, of course, that's what they are for...”
Tape recording between President Richard Nixon and Dr. Henry Kissinger, August 8th, 1974.
However... there was one problem that nobody seemed to work out. How would it work? How exactly would the Holy City, this Palestinian state, how would it all work? Could blood feuds really be overcome? Or was it simply a bandage to stop the bleeding of a long gone region?
It sounded a lot to Hassan Nasrallah as if the US was getting Arab countries to sell out for their own petty little interests. Yet another example of the shallowness of secular leaders, in his view. Who knew if they would be better off in these camps than in this new Palestinian state? Hassan was a Shiite, but like all Lebanese, he knew Palestinians, even if he didn't think much of them.[2] It was impossible not to, not with them flooding into the country a few years back. Well, soon they might wish to. He suspected that his people would not object-these Palestinians, with their secular ways and brash behavior, did not endear themselves to many in the Shi'a community. Things were escalating in Lebanon as the government steadily lost control of the situation. There were many fedayeen who wanted their old homes back rather than an uncertain future, and decided it was better to keep fighting.
Life in Lebanon was complicated. Hassan was glad he didn't live in Beirut, where things were even more complicated, if such a word could be used to describe the situation. The fighting was getting worse by the day. The city was split down the line between Maronite and Muslim. There were whispers about Hafez Al-Assad and the Zionists eyeing the chaos as well. Syrian troops were rumored to be among the assassins that constantly made the news. There was a summit in Riyadh in a couple months, perhaps then...[4]
Hassan squinted. The dust rose from his shoes as he walked. A couple of PLO men were standing on the corner. Hassan knew about the camps, about what had happened over the past decades. Sometimes Hassan wondered how they would ever adjust to normal life, being raised in refugee camps and handling guns ever since they were teenagers. Some of these men he had seen would need an enemy to fight to have purpose. Hassan wondered if some would stay to fight the Maronites just because it was someone to kill. More men than he cared to admit existed for that purpose alone-they seemed to concentrate in Lebanon. Hassan was no fan of the Maronites who had dominated the government and sold out to the West either, but he really couldn't blame them for being scared. This was a fight beyond political power. You could see it in the soldiers eyes, on both sides. They were beyond reasoning with.
Hassan started to walk around them. Better not to draw attention, certainly not as a bookish teenage Shiite schoolboy, small of stature and weaponless. He then stopped short.
There was a man lying dead on the road. Flies gathered around the dried blood near the bullet holes on his vest. Maggots crawled throughout his holes. He smelled bad-all dead smelled the same, sickly sweet, regardless of faith or race. Hassan knew that well enough. Plainly he had lain on the dusty road for quite sometime. Who was his family, if they existed in this world? The question briefly entered the young scholars mind, and then left almost as suddenly.
In 1976 in Lebanon, you didn't ask questions about strangers, and you learned not to let disappearance and death get to you. You only had so much capacity for caring. Save it for your family. Hassan jumped over him. A few years ago, he would have run, fleeing and screaming for his mother. Not anymore. The war changed that. The strife had made him grow up, along with countless other Christian, Sunni, and Shi'a children in Lebanon. Or countless children around the world, really. Indochina, South America, Central America...
Hassan walked away, with a little more speed in his steps. His thoughts returned to academic ones, one he was happiest with. He wondered if someday he could go study in Iraq or Iran, far away from this accursed land. Iraq. He paused. Funnily enough, there was a man in Najaf that was quite interesting. He wondered if something might happen in Iran down the road, something big. Something that would make his people less powerless over their own destiny. [5]
But, that was all in the future as Hassan continued on his way, another young man being forged by this region of peoples and bloods clashing.
*Primary goals coming into office-Vietnam, Europe, detente/arms race with the Soviet Union, China, Middle East.
**As annoyed as Nixon could be with Israel, he was not impressed by the Palestinian militants. Nixon was the one who basically started the “USA doesn't negotiate with terrorists” stuff in 1970 with the mess in Jordan and stuck by that during the Khatroum Incident. Nixon was a sports buff who was beyond horrified at what happened at Munich. He was also friendly with King Hussein, who they basically tried to have overthrown. Nixon is gambling that they will agree to negotiate with Israel instead of continuing to fight if he offers them a carrot-their state-and a stick-their allies agreeing to recognize Israel without them.
***Remind anyone of anything?
****Yeah, Nixon probably had a low opinion of Gaddafi too.
[1]-Yes, Nixon really said that.
[2]-Lebanon is a VERY complicated place to tackle, and a place I'm still learning about, so if what I say is not correct, tell me. A lot of the Palestinians were in Lebanon throughout the 70s after Black September, and that contributed to the deteriorating sectarian situation. I don't see any “prospective agreement” for a Palestinian state in 1975 changing this, it was too far gone and there were more problems than the Palestinians.
Some basic things that might be relevant:
a) In Lebanon, religion=ethnicity, not actual belief. Name is often a signifier of sect.
b) the secularism and non-sectarianism of the Palestinians in the South, where they fled in large measure in the early 70s after Jordan expelled them, often alienated many Shi'a. They often ended up in South Beirut slums because the PLO made them flee-they were probably the poorest group in Lebanon as a result. In short, the Palestinians and the Sunni in general were not popular among the Shi'a, and neither were the Christians who dominated the government. The Lebanese government, dominated again by the Maronites, basically left South Lebanon under PLO control to avoid getting involved with the Israelis.
c) Christian Lebanese leaned toward the West, very attached to French culture, Christian Palestinians sided with their people and weren't sectarian. Very different.
d) The idea of Syria and Israel cooperating or at least not attacking each other isn't as weird as it sounds, especially ATL with Israel/Syria relations. Assad hated the Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood, and Israel isn't paranoid about the Shi'ite with no Iranian Revolution quite yet. Nevertheless, they'll watch each other. Old habits die hard. I don't blame the Israelis for being on their toes with the Syrians mucking about in Lebanon.
[3]-THAT was a plan to occupy Saudi oil fields if push came to shove. Damn the feasibility.
[4]-The Iranian Revolution had a huge impact in radicalizing the Shi'a community.
[5]-Syria gets to put 40,000 troops in for “order”.
Nasrallah, as a Shi'a, is ironically a neutral observer-for now. The Christians and Sunnis are the ones who are primarily fighting for “existence” at the moment. The Iranian Revolution and Syrian intervention will change that. Assad will go in, presumably to “restore order”, and in order to lean on the overall peace process that is taking off in other regions, the USA will tolerate it. That's why I think Lebanon is still screwed to some extent in the late 70s, regardless of the Palestinian factor. There really isn't a “good guy” here-pretty much all parties operated with no regard for civilians whatsoever and believed that the other side was out to exterminate them.
The human consequences of realism. This is the civil war that popularized the car bomb. One must stare it in the eye if one is not a coward. Nixon's victory lap is rather premature-his key achievement was getting the ball rolling to a bigger extent than OTL in the mid 70s, the time where progress was possible. But things are better than OTL, again, with more Arab states than just Egypt on board. I should also mention that Nixon is being hammered on the Israeli issue in the 1976 election explicitly by the Democrats, and more subtly by Reagan by the bubbling Christian Right. Problems in this region are far from over.
If this sounds convoluted, well, welcome to Lebanon.
1. Full diplomatic recognition of Israel by its neighbors and Israeli coexistance with Arab states.
2 . Secure borders for Israel
3. Return to Arab states of territories captured in 1967
4. Self-government for the Palestinians.
We will work to create a Palestinian state. 1967 borders are to be the rough guideline of the peace, but not an exact one. Above all, the ticking time bomb that is the Palestinian question must be fixed before another Yom Kippur War occurs. There must be no armed Palestinian state at the gut of the State of Israel. To this end, a specially demilitarized zone is to be proposed on the border of Israel and the prospective Palestinian state as an amendment to UN Resolution 242. The PLO must give up the use of violence and terrorism. The government of the Soviet Union has stated their acceptance of the proposed agreement and their commitment to a stable Middle East as part of improvement of US-Soviet relations. If Israel agrees to return the occupied territories and commence relations with other Arab States, we should embark on a mutual security treaty with Israel stipulating that a conventional attack on Israel will be treated like an attack on the United States. The United States needs to craft additional measures to ensure that the loss of land would not mean a loss of security for Israel, and it to this end that the demilitarized zone is proposed. Land for peace is the formula to be used, as the Israeli government has realized that annexing Arab lands will only lead to more problems in the future. To achieve Palestinian self-government, local Palestinian autonomy in association with King Hussein of Jordan in the West Bank phased in over a multiyear transition period. We should engage in broad discussions with each side to explore their ideas for an adequate security framework. We should then determine what kind of settlement would be fair and feasible. Only after we identify the general outlines of such an agreement should we embark on the contentious task of crafting provisions and language for a formal treaty, and we have done the most important steps here today."
Official Press Statement of President Nixon, in part, on the Camp David Accord, March 16th, 1975.
“We did it, Henry. 5 for 5.* Let's do the rundown-we've flipped Egypt and Jordan to our side. Sadat's having a helluva time, we were wrong about him, weren't we? Mentioned he might go talk in front of the Knesset. Syria is getting the Golan Heights back and values that more than the Palestinians, and we are entering a more balanced relationship with them, getting them into a neutral zone between us and the Russians. So all he has left are the Sauds, the Iraqis, and the Gulf Monarchies. The Iraqis are a threat and remain a Soviet stalwart, but the Saudis we have made some interesting inroads with. They have proven to be pragmatic-very fortunate that we didn't need to resort to THAT after leaning on Meir, eh?[3] It's the most goddamn thing, for a little trouble with the oil, we will get a peace that people said couldn't be done, and maybe independence from that. They can't bring themselves to admit it.
I meant what I said about Israeli security, of course. We can't have them at the point of a bayonet. We are helping them out on security-they are useful in helping tip the balance in our favor against the Soviets. The Arabs have got to understand not to fuck with them after the agreement. This region is not one where you can trust anybody. Got to be tough. Behind them is the US. They have to tolerate each other sooner or later, like us and the Russians, the alternative is far worse.
Yeah, Henry, I know, that son of a bitching[1] Palestinian issue. US diplomacy is the only way they'll get their autonomous state, not Soviet arms. He's run his race. I'm presenting him (Arafat) with a fait accompli. I've got no objections to squeezing him either, not after his little stunt in Munich**. Fuck his little right of return, his people are tired and just want a home of their own, and if he doesn't take our publicized offer to talk about the state, who knows? If he gets shot, that's too damn bad... He'd better realize this-his allies have realized the reality of Israel. If we don't get two states now, we never will. For if we don't get a deal soon, those right wingers in Israel might win an election and not have to focus on their other Arab neighbors, and I'm not taking his shitty ass rocket throwing movement over them now that the important Arab states are making peace.*** I'm sure he knows it too. I feel it's coming. You could see it when we were there, the old secular socialist Israeli ideal is beginning to die.
Anything I'm missing, Henry? That dumb motherfucker in Libya?**** What, no, you said Lebanon? Well, Assad mentioned something about it blowing up, but better he's mucking about there than him using Soviet weapons to destroy Israel. Congress will whine, of course, that's what they are for...”
Tape recording between President Richard Nixon and Dr. Henry Kissinger, August 8th, 1974.
However... there was one problem that nobody seemed to work out. How would it work? How exactly would the Holy City, this Palestinian state, how would it all work? Could blood feuds really be overcome? Or was it simply a bandage to stop the bleeding of a long gone region?
It sounded a lot to Hassan Nasrallah as if the US was getting Arab countries to sell out for their own petty little interests. Yet another example of the shallowness of secular leaders, in his view. Who knew if they would be better off in these camps than in this new Palestinian state? Hassan was a Shiite, but like all Lebanese, he knew Palestinians, even if he didn't think much of them.[2] It was impossible not to, not with them flooding into the country a few years back. Well, soon they might wish to. He suspected that his people would not object-these Palestinians, with their secular ways and brash behavior, did not endear themselves to many in the Shi'a community. Things were escalating in Lebanon as the government steadily lost control of the situation. There were many fedayeen who wanted their old homes back rather than an uncertain future, and decided it was better to keep fighting.
Life in Lebanon was complicated. Hassan was glad he didn't live in Beirut, where things were even more complicated, if such a word could be used to describe the situation. The fighting was getting worse by the day. The city was split down the line between Maronite and Muslim. There were whispers about Hafez Al-Assad and the Zionists eyeing the chaos as well. Syrian troops were rumored to be among the assassins that constantly made the news. There was a summit in Riyadh in a couple months, perhaps then...[4]
Hassan squinted. The dust rose from his shoes as he walked. A couple of PLO men were standing on the corner. Hassan knew about the camps, about what had happened over the past decades. Sometimes Hassan wondered how they would ever adjust to normal life, being raised in refugee camps and handling guns ever since they were teenagers. Some of these men he had seen would need an enemy to fight to have purpose. Hassan wondered if some would stay to fight the Maronites just because it was someone to kill. More men than he cared to admit existed for that purpose alone-they seemed to concentrate in Lebanon. Hassan was no fan of the Maronites who had dominated the government and sold out to the West either, but he really couldn't blame them for being scared. This was a fight beyond political power. You could see it in the soldiers eyes, on both sides. They were beyond reasoning with.
Hassan started to walk around them. Better not to draw attention, certainly not as a bookish teenage Shiite schoolboy, small of stature and weaponless. He then stopped short.
There was a man lying dead on the road. Flies gathered around the dried blood near the bullet holes on his vest. Maggots crawled throughout his holes. He smelled bad-all dead smelled the same, sickly sweet, regardless of faith or race. Hassan knew that well enough. Plainly he had lain on the dusty road for quite sometime. Who was his family, if they existed in this world? The question briefly entered the young scholars mind, and then left almost as suddenly.
In 1976 in Lebanon, you didn't ask questions about strangers, and you learned not to let disappearance and death get to you. You only had so much capacity for caring. Save it for your family. Hassan jumped over him. A few years ago, he would have run, fleeing and screaming for his mother. Not anymore. The war changed that. The strife had made him grow up, along with countless other Christian, Sunni, and Shi'a children in Lebanon. Or countless children around the world, really. Indochina, South America, Central America...
Hassan walked away, with a little more speed in his steps. His thoughts returned to academic ones, one he was happiest with. He wondered if someday he could go study in Iraq or Iran, far away from this accursed land. Iraq. He paused. Funnily enough, there was a man in Najaf that was quite interesting. He wondered if something might happen in Iran down the road, something big. Something that would make his people less powerless over their own destiny. [5]
But, that was all in the future as Hassan continued on his way, another young man being forged by this region of peoples and bloods clashing.
*Primary goals coming into office-Vietnam, Europe, detente/arms race with the Soviet Union, China, Middle East.
**As annoyed as Nixon could be with Israel, he was not impressed by the Palestinian militants. Nixon was the one who basically started the “USA doesn't negotiate with terrorists” stuff in 1970 with the mess in Jordan and stuck by that during the Khatroum Incident. Nixon was a sports buff who was beyond horrified at what happened at Munich. He was also friendly with King Hussein, who they basically tried to have overthrown. Nixon is gambling that they will agree to negotiate with Israel instead of continuing to fight if he offers them a carrot-their state-and a stick-their allies agreeing to recognize Israel without them.
***Remind anyone of anything?
****Yeah, Nixon probably had a low opinion of Gaddafi too.
[1]-Yes, Nixon really said that.
[2]-Lebanon is a VERY complicated place to tackle, and a place I'm still learning about, so if what I say is not correct, tell me. A lot of the Palestinians were in Lebanon throughout the 70s after Black September, and that contributed to the deteriorating sectarian situation. I don't see any “prospective agreement” for a Palestinian state in 1975 changing this, it was too far gone and there were more problems than the Palestinians.
Some basic things that might be relevant:
a) In Lebanon, religion=ethnicity, not actual belief. Name is often a signifier of sect.
b) the secularism and non-sectarianism of the Palestinians in the South, where they fled in large measure in the early 70s after Jordan expelled them, often alienated many Shi'a. They often ended up in South Beirut slums because the PLO made them flee-they were probably the poorest group in Lebanon as a result. In short, the Palestinians and the Sunni in general were not popular among the Shi'a, and neither were the Christians who dominated the government. The Lebanese government, dominated again by the Maronites, basically left South Lebanon under PLO control to avoid getting involved with the Israelis.
c) Christian Lebanese leaned toward the West, very attached to French culture, Christian Palestinians sided with their people and weren't sectarian. Very different.
d) The idea of Syria and Israel cooperating or at least not attacking each other isn't as weird as it sounds, especially ATL with Israel/Syria relations. Assad hated the Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood, and Israel isn't paranoid about the Shi'ite with no Iranian Revolution quite yet. Nevertheless, they'll watch each other. Old habits die hard. I don't blame the Israelis for being on their toes with the Syrians mucking about in Lebanon.
[3]-THAT was a plan to occupy Saudi oil fields if push came to shove. Damn the feasibility.
[4]-The Iranian Revolution had a huge impact in radicalizing the Shi'a community.
[5]-Syria gets to put 40,000 troops in for “order”.
Nasrallah, as a Shi'a, is ironically a neutral observer-for now. The Christians and Sunnis are the ones who are primarily fighting for “existence” at the moment. The Iranian Revolution and Syrian intervention will change that. Assad will go in, presumably to “restore order”, and in order to lean on the overall peace process that is taking off in other regions, the USA will tolerate it. That's why I think Lebanon is still screwed to some extent in the late 70s, regardless of the Palestinian factor. There really isn't a “good guy” here-pretty much all parties operated with no regard for civilians whatsoever and believed that the other side was out to exterminate them.
The human consequences of realism. This is the civil war that popularized the car bomb. One must stare it in the eye if one is not a coward. Nixon's victory lap is rather premature-his key achievement was getting the ball rolling to a bigger extent than OTL in the mid 70s, the time where progress was possible. But things are better than OTL, again, with more Arab states than just Egypt on board. I should also mention that Nixon is being hammered on the Israeli issue in the 1976 election explicitly by the Democrats, and more subtly by Reagan by the bubbling Christian Right. Problems in this region are far from over.
If this sounds convoluted, well, welcome to Lebanon.
Last edited:
I'd assume that, but Realpolitik is too good to have dope-Reagan and then Satan-Rumsfeld coup #37.
That being said, Reagan will definitely screw with the Israel situation... damn Christian Zionists...
B-b-but how can an American politics TL be interesting without Reagan being a buffoon and Rumsfeld being Darth Sidious?
I joke, but yeah, from the hints my guess is that Reagan wins out in '76, but fumbles when it comes to foreign policy. Nixon and Kissinger have left behind a well put together, but rather fragile, situation, and I can see a certain would-be-Ayatollah kicking in the foundations.
If the Dems fail, it'd be interesting to see the proto-neocons shoot themselves in the foot against political Islam three decades ahead of schedule.
Park has his own motives for doing this. From what I know of the man, he probably could see the future quite clearly. If he can start making a partnership with the "New China" and expand his influence abroad, the less and less Kim Il Sung will matter. Would be pretty interesting to see Korean influence in Indochina, especially in the event of a unified Korea...
And don't worry. We are. The future neocons and Jackson Democrats, who are becoming something of a serious force on Capitol Hill around 1974-1975, are making sure of it. As for the rest of Congress, Koreagate was more successful OTL. Thank God for a few lovable crooks with hearts of gold, particularly in Texas with Connally's boys(LBJ *loved* Park, and a big factor in Texas's growth was military money, and a lot of that goes to Korea...).
Park's Korea loved Taiwan, and this fact remained until 1994 - we were the last in Asia to abandon the ROC. I suppose, with Park in the better half of his senses, he may even be able to pull off diplomatically recognising both Chinas. That will be a very interesting scenario.
As an aside, the Rangoon bombing incident by itself occurred because South Korea was attempting to keep up with NK in diplomatic influence over Africa and Southeast Asia - an obvious move for UN votes. I hope TTL South Korea starts doing so much earlier, thus being in the lead of the competition.
Koreagate was also focused around rice-producing states. That includes California, Louisiana, etc.
If Reagan wins how he handles the oncoming Iranian political storm, in addition to chaos on Lebanon, will be interesting. The situation Nixon set up is fragile and it looks like it's about to suffer an earthquake.
Realpolitik
Banned
BTW, some interesting things about Pat Nixon for those not aware.
She literally grew up in a shack. No, really. And Dick wasn't a whole lot better off as a kid, of course. You can see why they were both fighters. Steinem was excellent upon noting why she shared her husbands resentment toward the "well born" and why she wasn't exactly as "Plastic" as people presumed. But unlike her husband, she didn't let hate and resentment become her. Ultimately she was the stronger one.
She was determined to make something of herself. She worked herself through college-occasionally as a movie extra-in an era where college was all but unheard of for women, and certainly working while doing so was. That's what motivated me to include that passage about feminism. I'd be interested in hearing her take on it-she defied standards herself, but in an age that was so different.
Yes, he really did ask her to marry him on the first date. Half of me goes. Half of me goes . Say what you will about Nixon, he didn't think small.
Both husband and wife were very introverted, private people at heart. People mistake Dick's public distance as a slight to her or proof of the couple's distance or not being with the times. That's really not true-she wasn't for PDOFs anymore than he was. Reporters depicted them as estranged or Pat as a robot, no matter how close the marriage was in reality, as attested to be those who knew them. Dick was unabashedly sentimental in private about her-he actually ordered that she be served before himself. Pat was support that Dick couldn't do without, really-he relied off of her to be an introvert in politics.
Ironically, in spite of the above, they met while acting at a play. They both had an appreciation for that and music.
She literally grew up in a shack. No, really. And Dick wasn't a whole lot better off as a kid, of course. You can see why they were both fighters. Steinem was excellent upon noting why she shared her husbands resentment toward the "well born" and why she wasn't exactly as "Plastic" as people presumed.
But unlike her husband, she didn't let hate and resentment become her. Ultimately she was the stronger one.She was determined to make something of herself. She worked herself through college-occasionally as a movie extra-in an era where college was all but unheard of for women, and certainly working while doing so was. That's what motivated me to include that passage about feminism. I'd be interested in hearing her take on it-she defied standards herself, but in an age that was so different.
Yes, he really did ask her to marry him on the first date. Half of me goes
. Half of me goes . Say what you will about Nixon, he didn't think small.Both husband and wife were very introverted, private people at heart. People mistake Dick's public distance as a slight to her or proof of the couple's distance or not being with the times. That's really not true-she wasn't for PDOFs anymore than he was. Reporters depicted them as estranged or Pat as a robot, no matter how close the marriage was in reality, as attested to be those who knew them. Dick was unabashedly sentimental in private about her-he actually ordered that she be served before himself. Pat was support that Dick couldn't do without, really-he relied off of her to be an introvert in politics.
Ironically, in spite of the above, they met while acting at a play. They both had an appreciation for that and music.
Last edited:
Realpolitik
Banned
Unlike certain people here, I do not think Ronald Reagan is the devil reincarnated. But yes, he will try to put the brakes on Dick's goal to "squeeze" the Israelis and Palestinians into agreeing. Reagan will not be committed to a Middle East peace like Nixon was, especially if the relationship with the Soviets goes downhill.
Ford threated to "reassess" the relationship when the Israelis backed out of the restarted peace process after Watergate. I cannot feasibly imagine that Nixon would not be willing to do that *at least* given his well documented... ambiguous relationship with Jews, and it's thanks to Nixon that they have a state at all-Operation Nickle Grass. He had the whip hand (and a willingness to use it) and political capital in a manner that Ford or Carter didn't. That cheering in Cairo in 1974, imagine if it could be harnessed. The US was, for a short while, thought of as the wave of the future in Egypt. The mid 70s, between Yom Kippur and the Likud election, are *crucial* for a better Middle East, and I think the best shot at that is an America that is focused on that. The best way of that happening is no Watergate and an utter focus on the oil crisis as a result.
Remember, Nixon got some seriously good press after the crisis for averting nuclear war and "sacrificing" for energy Independence, in part thanks to a slick PR campaign from the White House. Combine that with CHIP, Chinese relations, and SALT II and detente reaching a height, and Nixon was at the height of his foreign policy making power in 1974 without Watergate and with no more elections for Nixon. And he used that power. No Watergate, the focus of the US is on the Middle East in 1974 after the oil embargo, and Nixon's plans will have full support for a limited time. The Israel lobby can moan all they want-for a short while, until the Ellsberg Scandal and the crunching economy weakens Nixon's statesman image.
I'd say that the situation is still better than OTL in the long term. One key factor is that the Soviet Union is playing a much better role than OTL with Syria since it's Dick instead of Henry who is still in charge of policy. Syria and Jordan have agreed to peace, a powerful right wing POTUS has committed himself to new relations with the Arab world, and Sadat isn't perceived as fully betraying the Arab world as a result. That leads to a much better Egypt. And we do have some kind of plan for the Palestinians, which in turn leads to Saudis and Company recognizing Israel. So, overall, better. But still explosive/fragile in areas.
Iran is still ready to blow, and Nixon's plan in regards to the Palestinians is preliminary. It's FAR from perfect and shows how deep the Middle East problems run. Nixon himself stated that it would take a multi administration effort to get a final peace plan worked out-his job was to get the ball rolling, make the US the dominant power in the region, and to strongarm the Israelis and Arabs into talking, and when he is making that statement before his troubles pile up, he probably is thinking that somebody like Connally or Rockefeller could become POTUS and finish the job with his input.
I think ultimately, Nixon could make great progress in the Middle East(and is also clever enough to make sure that this comes off like a great victory in the Arab world by putting in a plan for the Palestinians-Nixon really cares more about Egypt/Syria/Soviet Union/Saudi Arabia than them), but any full plan is ASB. The Middle East is a place that might never know true peace.
There is a far darker side to all this, outside the region, that nobody seems to remember, and which is why the Saudis and the rest are willing to deal with Nixon in spite of his "betrayal" which led to the oil embargo(aside from the fact that he's visibly willing to pressure Israel and is if not trustworthy, "fair"). See the first part on "negatives in Nixon's foreign policy legacy" for what I mean. Keep in mind, radical Islam really isn't on the agenda-yet.
I think Park is in something of a psychologically better place with no fears about the US completely withdrawing and leaving him to become South Vietnam 2.0. A key difference is this, though: South Korea is by 1976 the stronger of the two Koreas and is starting to be recognized as the "real Korea" in places that matter. Kim Il Sung is the one who is worried about avoiding reunification. And he also knows to play both sides. It's key because here, the South took the initiative on the early 1976 agreement and is the "leader".
Korea is getting started on outside influence a little earlier in the TL as a result.
Yes, and those are the states that are richer, and support Nixon-and Reagan-out the nose. You can rely off them. Good, healthy anti-communists who don't ask questions.
Last edited:
Realpolitik
Banned
Fragile for the whole region is a little much-again, Camp David has been de facto expanded and there is much more progress than OTL-but in Iran and Lebanon, you'd be correct. I'd argue that the countdown for the Shah had started long before 1978. The creation of the Rastakhiz in 1975 really pissed off a lot of previously political people, as an example. As the 70s went on, he got more and more extravagant and politically blind. The crowns, the pageantry... it beyond wiped out the good done by the White Revolution, which itself alienated a lot of the traditional classes.
Saudi Arabia is also fermenting. The Grand Mosque Incident is also in the works, and Likud is on the rise in Israel, combined with Nixon leaving office to a successor that will in all likelihood denounce him for his "amorality" in the Middle East. Still... there is the plan. Let's wait and see.
Last edited: