Legacy of The Tenth Crusade - A Divergences of Darkness Nation Quest [Finished]

I'd like to note that Purge technically doesn't outlaw Islamists Paramilitary. It does hurt them the most though. It removes state funding, all reservists are forcibly moved into a differentreservist branch, bans service members from joining, and seize all weapons given to them by the army. It'd undercut the growth they've enjoyed.

Upon reflection, I'll add Defund Islamist Paramilitary as an option to do a watered down version of that.
 
Here are some options in plan format

Plan: The Purge
-[ ] Purge Them
What this plan does is in the title. Removes the Islamists from the military and the AENC party.

Plan: No Troops to Command
-[ ] Demobilize Them
-[ ] Dissolve and Shuffle
@yeastmobile's choices in plan format. The goal is removing the troops that the Islamist officers would command from under them.

Plan: A Good Excuse
-[ ] Arrest Officers
-[ ] Defund Islamist Paramilitary
This plan uses the behavior and performance of the Islamist officers during the Levant campaign as an excuse to remove their officers and to defund the Islamist paramilitary.

Plan: Let Them Stay
-[ ] Do Nothing
Here we decide to continue to work with the Islamists.
 
It would be remarkably on brand if we accidentally own-goaled ourselves after taking out the closest military threat.

A purge highlights internal dissent in Egypt, proves we aren't a unified force to outside observers, and is liable to alienate a decent chunk of the populace at home. We pull this trigger with 0 prep work and we're going to mysteriously lose a lot of the Islamist paramilitary heavy weaponry as Salaam has every incentive to turn the Islamists into an active 5th column when the Arab League devolves into war.
 
I'm reminded of how we were terrified of pulling the trigger on Marcato and it was just fine.

But maybe it's hubris talking.

On the other hand I don't like half measures because they're probably enough to trigger rebellion anyway since we've given them nothing times and times again. Leaving them a power base knowing they have no good reason to keep cooperating seem like a mistake.
 
A purge highlights internal dissent in Egypt, proves we aren't a unified force to outside observers, and is liable to alienate a decent chunk of the populace at home. We pull this trigger with 0 prep work and we're going to mysteriously lose a lot of the Islamist paramilitary heavy weaponry as Salaam has every incentive to turn the Islamists into an active 5th column when the Arab League devolves into war.
Khouri did had plans to arrest the Islamist officers in case they sided with the governor so they wouldn't be zero prep. Of course, those plans are quite outdated now.

It seems unlikely that the Islamists would go quietly along with a purge, they have more friends and public support than the royalist officers had and the Arab League monarchies could jump on us as well using the border dispute over Jordan and Jerusalem as a casus belli to trigger the Arab Unification war now.

On the other hand, the concessions that the Islamists will demand to keep them in the AENC are likely to be unacceptable to us especially if we had weakened their position in the military beforehand. The Islamists are a small part of the military in terms of officers and in terms of the party wing in parliament. Perhaps we should strike now before they can further entrench themselves?
 
Many would begrudgingly accept the call of duty, and those that didn't were given alternative options. The ministry was always in need of support staff, and the funds it'd acquired ensured that it could hire for every position. As most were illiterate, education courses had to be established to get enough clerks to handle the military's expansion. Khouri decided literacy would be a required part of regular and reservist training, taught after drilling had finished, in a model similar to the peasant militia. He could not push for Marxist theory to be taught, unfortunately, as Marcato pushed back on it, insisting that the regulars remain apolitical.

If political leanings were to be imparted onto soldiers, it'd be done to the stance of the individual officer in charge of them. That still meant many regulars and reservists would slowly shift leftwards. The Socialist clique was the most unified in ideology compared to the others, allowing them to sway more towards them than Royalists, Copts, or Others could. It was only the Islamists that shared similar success, albeit on a smaller scale. They enjoyed a boost to their membership as well. Officers networking with conservative reservists and pushing them to join its paramilitary forces. While not valid as an alternative service, Islamist paramilitaries did receive good pay, provided by the party and political allies. It'd enticed more than a few young men, now with the beginning of military training, into joining up as a soldier for hire.

I am not sure that the No Troops to Command plan would be the best way of reducing the influence of the Islamists in the military. The politicization of the Egyptian military is largely in a top-down measure from the officers to largely illiterate soldiers and the new political stances of the soldiers are mostly shaped by individual officer in charge of them. If the Islamist officers remain in the military, they can always convert new recruits to the Islamist cause. Remove the Islamist officers and the supply of new Islamists created in the military will dry up in my opinion.
 
No Troops doesn't solve the fundmental problem of having Islamists in commanding positions throughout the army, positions they can use to sabotage and betray us in a critical time, and also leaves thousands of defectees and fighters who can spread islamist methodology to the rank and file.

Like we literally nearly had a genocide on our hands and only avoided it because we didn't appease the Islamists, I see no reason to change course
 
There had been major news out of the monarchies of the Arab League. Nejd announced it'd secured marriage alliances with Hejaz and Oman, tying the royal families of all three countries together under King Harroun. In addition to the ties previously made with the exiled Yemenite royals, it meant Nejd was posed to possibly unite the whole Arab Peninsula under a single dynasty. It was unknown if the king planned on unifying the countries into a single kingdom or not. If he did it'd be the first true Arab Caliphate in hundreds of years.

*snip*

"... When news of it broke the Islamists were buzzing with excitement," Khouri remarked. "Many former republicans are professing a sudden interest in a monarchy if it means they can make an Islamic state."
Well they've made their move for an Arab empire, and Islamists are prepping to support a unification under em. I think war against em is made even more certain now. Bruderkrieg vibes.

Its inability to project force was stung, especially when it failed to conquer Assyria. The presence of Turkish and Iranian troops was enough to make them stand down. While Turkey and Iran wanted support in their future war against Macedonia.
Dunno what we can (or want) to do wrt Iraq's irredentism over Assyria, but we could defo back up Turkey and Iran against Macedonia (esp socialist Turkey).

New Afrika wanted to establish military connections in the region. They were hopeful that Egypt would be interested in working together with them. They were interested in laying the groundwork for future insurgencies to take on Burgundy and Scandinavia's massive colonial empires.
Very ambitious, long term goal. Something we can support, but seems like a mid- or post-world war kinda goal.

The rebuilding of Jerusalem was another serious issue, since nearly everyone wanted to see major sites rebuilt with as many original materials as possible. Who would govern the city was a serious concern too. It'd be a major diplomatic windfall to be the steward of the holy city. It was jointly occupied by Egypt, Maghreb, and the Arab League.
My preference would be a Levantine state including much of modern Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, & Syria which is a member of a Pan-Arab socialist confederation alongside Egypt & Yemen.

Remember to vote by plan people.

Will a purge disrupt the effectiveness of the armed forces too much? Will it trigger a civil war in Egypt now? Will it set an unfortunate precedent in Egyptian politics removing military officers that have so far served with loyalty due to their politics or is it just like arresting the retiring royalist officers to remove a potential threat during the Sinai crisis? Questions to consider.
OTOH I wonder if a war against the "Arab Caliphate", whether they or us are the ones starting it, would essentially incite a civil war against Islamists just like pulling off a purge does that too? Also elements of the army could and would still sabotage in differing ways edit: should we do the half-measures. Meanwhile, the paramilitaries whether still active, disbanded as part of a half-measure plan, or disbanded as part of a thorough purge would still be able to turncoat for the "Caliphate". Such as by becoming part of their volunteer force.

Edit2:
Salaam has every incentive to turn the Islamists into an active 5th column when the Arab League devolves into war.
I will note that he would very likely do this anyways if we go to war against the "Arab Caliphate" under our commitment to protect Yemen from its exiled dynasty and their Arab allies, whether we purge the Islamists or not, after Islamists were noted to reverse support for republicanism and towards monarchy in light of the marriage alliances. The only way to not have a civil war against Islamists is keep giving em concessions, which the voter base has been opposed to since it involves stuff like discrimination against women, throwing Yemen to the wolves only delays it.

Edit4:

Changed voting for this @BoredStudent1414 's argument that this is the better half-measure:

[X] Plan: A Good Excuse
 
Last edited:
Khouri did had plans to arrest the Islamist officers in case they sided with the governor so they wouldn't be zero prep. Of course, those plans are quite outdated now.

It seems unlikely that the Islamists would go quietly along with a purge, they have more friends and public support than the royalist officers had and the Arab League monarchies could jump on us as well using the border dispute over Jordan and Jerusalem as a casus belli to trigger the Arab Unification war now.

On the other hand, the concessions that the Islamists will demand to keep them in the AENC are likely to be unacceptable to us especially if we had weakened their position in the military beforehand. The Islamists are a small part of the military in terms of officers and in terms of the party wing in parliament. Perhaps we should strike now before they can further entrench themselves?
I don't even mind if the Islamists split from the party if we can reliably keep a majority for the AENC in the legislature. This sorta big tent coalition worked when we all hated the imperialists more than each other, but its important to get the opposition to buy into the legitimacy of working within the system rather than just extorting us from inside the same camp.

The old unupdated page lists the Islamists as being ~20% of the AENC's membership. That was before being elected to power IIRC. Probably more Islamists are in the AENC as a whole, but the ratio is likely much smaller with our successful land reforms and industrial reorganization. That's too large of a minority to casually alienate, but small enough that if we constrain them to work within the system to secure small victories through the government apparatus (and not the ruling cabal) it can be stable.

I will note that he would very likely do this anyways if we go to war against the "Arab Caliphate" under our commitment to protect Yemen from its exiled dynasty and their Arab allies, whether we purge the Islamists or not, after Islamists were noted to reverse support for republicanism and towards monarchy in light of the marriage alliances. The only way to not have a civil war against Islamists is keep giving em concessions, which the voter base has been opposed to since it involves stuff like discrimination against women, throwing Yemen to the wolves only delays it.
The narrative in which the Islamist opposition occurs is of vital importance. If we purge them now- it is objectively a marxist power grab. Lets not mince words, we're not purging them because they've actively crossed the line- we'd be purging them to secure our position. That's going to alienate some of the Baathists, or the Islamic communists, or the moderate bourgeoise who are going to be wary of a government that systematically annihilates any opposition groups. If they betray us- that's a potentially a betrayal of Arab nationalism given our successes, a betrayal of the people who actively destroyed their religious enemies, and an attack on a government that as far as most people are concerned isn't necessarily doing anything wrong (though that will change if this war devolves and becomes a quagmire)

Declaring a war of annihilation on a political group you don't like is discarding one of the potentially strongest assets a democracy has- the ability to tolerate open opposition within reason. So remove the ability to oppose us without the government's mechanisms (like say paramilitary violence) and acknowledge the fundamental truth of our situation and our society- religion is going to be a fundamental political force and major influence for decades to come. We can no more kill fundamentalist Islam through violence and civil war than we can destroy Islam inside our country. We need to normalize things, create internal stability and prosperity in order to create a cultural and societal context where (particularly violent) fundamentalist Islam is less and less attractive and socialist principles are increasingly vindicated, accepted, and normalized.

Seriously, when has a communist nation's commitment to opposing and suppressing religion as a political force ever been without immense bloodshed and suffering? The exact sort of slippery slope that causes so many instances to degenerate into oppressive systems. We need to find an accommodation and method for non-communists to exist and participate in our government and society if we want to truly represent the people and create the stability necessary for lasting prosperity. 'Anyone who's not a communist is a Civil War waiting to happen' is not a novel take, and has to my limited knowledge- never proven the ideal solution to creating a communist utopia. I don't agree with the Islamists, I'd love for the Islamists to not be a problem- but they appeal to a substantial amount of our population and bludgeoning that subset of our population until they submit and become good little proles is not conductive in the long run to creating a system where legitimacy rests in the people.
 
Last edited:
Lets not mince words, we're not purging them because they've actively crossed the line- we'd be purging them to secure our position.
For both reasons really. Their proposals against minorities & women are all non-starters, but the more pressing is their attempted genocide during the Arab-Levantine War/Egyptian War of Independence. I'm repeating myself *and* also being equally frank that the upcoming "Brother's War" opposing aim over Pan-Arab unification between the Arab republics and Arab monarchies means that the showdown with Islamists *will* happen. Especially since as the most recent update noted they've moved from tacit support of republicanism to realize an "Islamic" state, to supporting the burgeouning monarchical "Caliphate" instead.

Declaring a war of annihilation on a political group you don't like is discarding one of the potentially strongest assets a democracy has- the ability to tolerate open opposition within reason.
Considering IRL, "within reason" is always arbitrary on which opposition any democracy considers reasonable (e.g. borderline fascists) & which aren't (e.g. BLM activists). For AENC-governed Egypt, the Islamism of the Ikhwan *shouldn't* be something within reason. I do agree that not taking the first shot wrt inevitable Islamist strike against AENC has merit, we need a more clear reason to counter them. Gonna edit out my purge vote, on top of Fission's mandating 1 vote.

Seriously, when has a communist nation's commitment to opposing and suppressing religion as a political force ever been without immense bloodshed and suffering?
As a Muslim myself I don't really appreciate you conflating the purge of proto-Ikhwan Islamism present in the quest to blanket religious oppression. The Islamists Egyptian forces also the very same people that attempted to do a vengeful religiously-motivated genocide. There's also cases where a religious institution edit: IRL was tied with an imperial state oppression (e.g. Russian Patriarchate).

That aside, I do understand that religious fundamentalists, especially one with an established militaty & paramilitary like ours can only be dampened by thorough deradicalization after said force is broken. Off the top of my head, the successful cases of restraining such a level of armed force include what the majority-Indonesian Indonesian republic's did against the DI/TII. The effort was helped by the insurrection was pan-Indonesian, unlike strictly ethnic nationalist somewhat-Islamist GAM (which ended with their version of "sharia law" over Aceh in exchange for not breaking off). It's as constant effort as curbing fash & their attempts to creep in.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top