US plans Baghdad military governor during occupation

[MKSheppard]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/ame ... ory=341768

US plans Baghdad military governor during occupation

Leaked documents point to radical approach for post-Saddam Middle East
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
12 October 2002

The Bush administration is contemplating a lengthy postwar occupation of Iraq, in which a senior US general would become de facto governor of the country, oversee the dismantling of weapons of mass destruction and retain US control over Iraq's most prized natural resource, its oilfields.

The plan, modelled on the six- year occupation of Japan after the Second World War, was disclosed to The New York Times and splashed on the newspaper's front page yesterday – the latest in a long series of leaks concerning US military plans in Iraq, and a likely indication of deep disquiet in senior administration circles about the wisdom of invading and occupying an important Middle Eastern country.

According to the report, the Bush administration does not want to follow the post-war strategy it has pursued in Afghanistan – setting up a provisional government run exclusively by civilian nationals – because they want to minimise the sort of chaos that has plagued Afghanistan over the past 10 months and make absolutely sure any biological or chemical weapons do not fall into the wrong hands once Saddam Hussein is toppled.

Iraqi opposition groups, who have been heavily courted in recent months and encouraged to provoke a coup against Saddam, will therefore be left out of the picture for months, if not years. Even if they succeeded in toppling President Saddam by themselves, administration officials told The New York Times, they could expect a heavy US military presence to move in and take charge of the transition to a more stable, pro- American government system.

"We're just not sure what influence groups on the outside would have on the inside," one unnamed official told the newspaper. "There would also be differences among Iraqis, and we don't want chaos and anarchy in the early process."

In the initial phase, which could last a year or more, Iraq would be governed by a US military commander – possibly Tommy Franks, the commander of US forces in the Gulf who oversaw the Afghan campaign and is expected to do the same if the invasion of Iraq goes ahead. General Franks would in effect play the same role as General Douglas MacArthur in Japan after the surrender in 1945.

Administration officials told the newspaper they envisaged war crimes tribunals for senior Iraqi commanders. There would also be a de facto take-over of the Iraqi oilfields, representing 11 per cent of total world output of crude oil.

How the world would react to an occupation on these terms was unclear yesterday – there was little or no immediate reaction to the report – but the strong whiff of imperialism is likely to inflame anti-American sentiment in the Arab world and possibly beyond.

Many leading opinion-formers in the United States, including military commanders and the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, John Shalikashvili, have expressed concern about the feasibility of a lengthy occupation and its effect on US relations with other states in the region.

Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state widely revered in the United States as a foreign policy guru, said last week that he was "viscerally opposed" to a prolonged occupation of "a Muslim country at the heart of the Muslim world".

President Bush was nevertheless likely to be feeling emboldened after the convincing "yes" votes in both the House and the Senate on a resolution authorising the use of virtually unlimited force against Iraq.

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," President Bush said.

"Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States.

"Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."

*************

[Mr Bean]

Ahh, I think I know the General they will pick and if so good choice

If not.. THOSE FUCKERS SHOULD HAVE LISTENED ME ! MEEEEEE ME ME!

Seriously though these people seem to have forgot how to win a War(IE With this decleration Leaking confedential information.. Whats that Timmy? YES TREASON)

Spout Freedom fo the Press all you want, The Media has the collective IQ of a Cumquat when it comes to matters of National Secruity so telling them anything is the same as telling Saddam in person

[Master of Ossus]

Of course the Arabs would care if we installed a military governor. It's just a question of what we should do instead.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Well, this will be a field day for anti-American people. "America is invading Iraq just for the oil!"

[Master of Ossus]

Well, this will be a field day for anti-American people. "America is invading Iraq just for the oil!"

I hardly think that we need Iraqi oil that much. We seem to be doing fairly well without it, right now. It would be much more pertinent if the FRENCH were accused of AIDING the Americans purely for oil.

[MKSheppard]

Well, this will be a field day for anti-American people. "America is invading Iraq just for the oil!"

Shit, you didn't think we were doing it for the goodness and purity of our
hearts to liberate the oppressed Iraqi public?

EVERYTHING IS ABOUT MONEY.

[Mr Bean]

Acutal this one realy is a defenseive move


Saddam=Bad
Mass Destruction=BAD BAD, stops flow of Campain Contributions and free Unreproted Gifts!.... Oh and kills voters to

Saddam+Mass Destruction Weapons=BAD
KILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Basic reason we are going to War

After all if the American public dies... Who's gonna show up to vote them back into office?

[salm]

so why does bush want to invade iraq and not north korea?

[Shinova]

Guys, they didn't just leak this... they announced it on the freakin news!


*Bleh, the stupidity of the media these days*

[Evil Jerk]

The threat of mass destruction does not come from Saddam, but from people like Osama, who get their money from sympathisers in places like Saudi Arabia.

Saddam is just the scapegoat. Sure he's a bastard, but he's a bastard who's sat in his own little kingdom all these years and the US has done nothing about it, until now because it's convenient.
Oil prices are on the rise, you cannot say that America suddenly having direct control of some nice mid east oil isn't desirable.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Shit, you didn't think we were doing it for the goodness and purity of our
hearts to liberate the oppressed Iraqi public?

EVERYTHING IS ABOUT MONEY.

The fact that they are still contemplating the idea of installing U.S. military rule in Iraq suggests that the primary reason we decided to invade Iraq was not for control of the oil. Otherwise, they would have planned on installing U.S. military control on Iraq long before even announcing Iraq was next. Not only that, but there is a minute chance that Saddam will snap out of his idiocy, agree to comply with getting rid of his weapons of mass destruction, and resign his position as President of Iraq to avoid the invasion and maybe a war crimes trial. If he did this, wtf would we do?! Invade Iraq anyway? LOL That sorta screws over the oil control plan, doesn't it?

[Evil Jerk]

Not only that, but there is a minute chance that Saddam will snap out of his idiocy, agree to comply with getting rid of his weapons of mass destruction, and resign his position as President of Iraq to avoid the invasion and maybe a war crimes trial. If he did this, wtf would we do?! Invade Iraq anyway? LOL That sorta screws over the oil control plan, doesn't it?

Oh please, do you REALLY think that's at all possible?

[IRG CommandoJoe]

It is possible but not probable.

[salm]

Guys, they didn't just leak this... they announced it on the freakin news!

i dont have a tv nor do i get a daily newspaper.(but finally i managed to get an abo of the "zeit" - very good weakly newspaper- )

so, sorry

[Joe]

Shit, you didn't think we were doing it for the goodness and purity of our
hearts to liberate the oppressed Iraqi public?

EVERYTHING IS ABOUT MONEY.

The fact that they are still contemplating the idea of installing U.S. military rule in Iraq suggests that the primary reason we decided to invade Iraq was not for control of the oil. Otherwise, they would have planned on installing U.S. military control on Iraq long before even announcing Iraq was next. Not only that, but there is a minute chance that Saddam will snap out of his idiocy, agree to comply with getting rid of his weapons of mass destruction, and resign his position as President of Iraq to avoid the invasion and maybe a war crimes trial. If he did this, wtf would we do?! Invade Iraq anyway? LOL That sorta screws over the oil control plan, doesn't it?

Well, they did advocate an invasion of Iraq five months before September 11 for oil.

http://www.sundayherald.com/28224

Saddam doesn't have the capability to launch nukes at the U.S., the only nation that is in any danger of being attacked by Iraqi nukes is, surprise, Israel, a bastion of hardcore socialism that the United States gains little from supporting.

It's also unlikely that Iraq has funded al Qaida (the U.S. government has, however).

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Damnit, I was wrong. Oh poo.