WI: Lesser British involvement in the War on Terror

[forcon]

Until 2006, Britain only had a single battle group in Afghanistan. A surge of sorts happened after that when a brigade was deployed. Following the deployment of a brigade in 2006, Operation Herrick saw the British Army and Royal Marines rotating full brigades through Afghanistan.

On top of this, Britain also had a full Division in Iraq in 2003 and a brigade deployed there afterwards for several years.

So what if no British troops entered Iraq, and the UK retained only a single battle group in Afghanistan until withdrawal in 2014?

What would Anglo-American relations look like?

What would the British Army look like?

[James G]

Dec 29, 2020 9:41:56 GMT forcon said:

Until 2006, Britain only had a single battle group in Afghanistan. A surge of sorts happened after that when a brigade was deployed. Following the deployment of a brigade in 2006, Operation Herrick saw the British Army and Royal Marines rotating full brigades through Afghanistan.

On top of this, Britain also had a full Division in Iraq in 2003 and a brigade deployed there afterwards for several years.

So what if no British troops entered Iraq, and the UK retained only a single battle group in Afghanistan until withdrawal in 2014?

What would Anglo-American relations look like?

What would the British Army look like?

I remember back in late 2002 / early 2003 when Rumsfield made a remark that British forces weren't needed for invading Iraq: the US could do it alone. It was at the time that the Blair Gov. was involved in internal political issues and also at the UN. Maybe it was off-the-cuff, or maybe a planned move to pile on the pressure.
Iraq could have been done without British troops: invasion and occupation. Perhaps there could have been diplomatic support but no more. Or maybe the Australian route with a small air contingent during the invasion then post-invasion naval support. That was do-able.
Blair didn't have to suck up to Bush over Iraq. If he hadn't, it was rather unlikely that the US would have gone full enemy against the UK! There have been bigger, more open splits and UK-US ties have long remained strong due to mutual interests in so many fields.
On the matter of the British Army, there might still be a stronger 'heavier' force. The Iraq mission cost much in terms of cash, manpower and doctrinal change.   

[sandyman]

Well if we kept out of Iraq I would not have a fair amount of Titanium in my back. However if we did keep out of Iraq completely the military would be in a bad place equipment wise. The amount of UORs that it generated did give the UK big uplift or good usable equipment that we would never have had otherwise.

[lordroel]

Dec 29, 2020 20:49:21 GMT sandyman said:

Well if we kept out of Iraq I would not have a fair amount of Titanium in my back. However if we did keep out of Iraq completely the military would be in a bad place equipment wise. The amount of UORs that it generated did give the UK big uplift or good usable equipment that we would never have had otherwise.

Also i would asume the relations between the United Kingdom and the United States would be somewhat colder than OTL.

[simon darkshade]

That very issue is why the notion of 'lesser involvement' is unlikely. Above and beyond the very real beliefs and attitudes held at the time, it also provided an opportunity to prove their status as the closest of US allies and friends. That is much more important to long term British interests than the difficulties or misgivings over individual campaigns.

What seems to really being asked is for Britain to not engage in the War on Terror, which simply goes against Blair's leanings and policies going back to the 1990s.

[gillan1220]

The U.S. would express disappointment at Britain but that's about it.

[lordroel]

Jan 10, 2021 15:04:57 GMT gillan1220 said:

The U.S. would express disappointment at Britain but that's about it.

We have France as a example, but France did not have a Special Relationship with the United States which might be damage for some years if the United Kingdom does not get involved in the 2003 War.

Seems i have a thread once called: What if: United Kingdom does not take part in the Iraq War

[gillan1220]

Jan 10, 2021 15:18:04 GMT lordroel said:

Jan 10, 2021 15:04:57 GMT gillan1220 said:

The U.S. would express disappointment at Britain but that's about it.

We have France as a example, but France did not have a Special Relationship with the United States which might be damage for some years if the United Kingdom does not get involved in the 2003 War.

Seems i have a thread once called: What if: United Kingdom does not take part in the Iraq War

France does have a special relationship with the United States. It did help during the American Revolution. Fast forward to 2003 and France refused to take part in Iraqi Freedom, the U.S. just expressed disappointment.

As for the other thread, there's a scenario in the Wiki called Between Iraq and a Hard Place which tackles on that subject.