Bush's Plan to conquer...errrr.....liberate Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics' started by OPTIONAL777, Jan 6, 2003.

  1. Check out the "nation building" plan. Notice the lack of United Nations joint efforts in developing this plan, the controlling of the oil fields, etc.

    No, Bush isn't into nation building, and this isn't about oil.....

    The Saudis and Iran are going to love living next door to Iraq occupied by US troops and flying the American flag....

    From the New York Times

    January 6, 2003
    U.S. Is Completing Plan to Promote a Democratic Iraq

    WASHINGTON, Jan. 5 — President Bush's national security team is assembling final plans for administering and democratizing Iraq after the expected ouster of Saddam Hussein. Those plans call for a heavy American military presence in the country for at least 18 months, military trials of only the most senior Iraqi leaders and quick takeover of the country's oil fields to pay for reconstruction.

    The proposals, according to administration officials who have been developing them for several months, have been discussed informally with Mr. Bush in considerable detail. They would amount to the most ambitious American effort to administer a country since the occupations of Japan and Germany at the end of World War II. With Mr. Bush's return here this afternoon, his principal foreign policy advisers are expected to shape the final details in White House meetings and then formally present them to the president.

    Many elements of the plans are highly classified, and some are still being debated as Mr. Bush's team tries to allay concerns that the United States would seek to be a colonial power in Iraq. But the broad outlines show the enormous complexity of the task in months ahead, and point to some of the difficulties that would follow even a swift and successful removal of Mr. Hussein from power, including these:

    Though Mr. Bush came to office expressing distaste for using the military for what he called nation building, the Pentagon is preparing for at least a year and a half of military control of Iraq, with forces that would keep the peace, hunt down Mr. Hussein's top leaders and weapons of mass destruction and, in the words of one of Mr. Bush's senior advisers, "keep the country whole."

    A civilian administrator — perhaps designated by the United Nations — would run the country's economy, rebuild its schools and political institutions, and administer aid programs. Placing those powers in nonmilitary hands, administration officials hope, will quell Arab concerns that a military commander would wield the kind of unchallenged authority that Gen. Douglas MacArthur exercised as supreme commander in Japan.

    Only "key" senior officials of the Hussein government "would need to be removed and called to account," according to an administration document summarizing plans for war trials. People in the Iraqi hierarchy who help bring down the government may be offered leniency.

    The administration plan says, "Government elements closely identified with Saddam's regime, such as the revolutionary courts or the special security organization, will be eliminated, but much of the rest of the government will be reformed and kept."

    While publicly saying Iraqi oil would remain what one senior official calls "the patrimony of the Iraqi people," the administration is debating how to protect oil fields during the conflict and how an occupied Iraq would be represented in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, if at all.

    After long debate, especially between the Pentagon and the State Department, the White House has rejected for now the idea of creating a provisional government before any invasion.

    Officials involved in the planning caution that no matter how detailed their plans, many crucial decisions would have to be made on the ground in Iraq. So for now they have focused on legal precedents — including an examination of the legal basis for taking control of the country at all — and a study of past successes and failures in nation building, reaching back to the American administration of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War.

    The plans presented to Mr. Bush will include several contingencies that depend heavily, officials say, on how Mr. Hussein leaves power. "So much rides on the conflict itself, if it becomes a conflict, and on how the conflict starts and how the conflict ends," one of Mr. Bush's top advisers said.

    Much also depends on whether the arriving American troops would be welcomed or shot at, and the Central Intelligence Agency has been drawing up scenarios that range from a friendly occupation to a hostile one.

    Yet under all of the possibilities, the American military would remain the central player in running the country for some time. The Pentagon has warned that it would take at least a year to be certain that all of Mr. Hussein's weapons stores were destroyed.

    Notably, the administration's written description of its goals include these two objectives: "preserve Iraq as a unitary state, with its territorial integrity intact," and "prevent unhelpful outside interference, military or nonmilitary," apparently a warning to neighboring countries.

    Administration officials insist American forces would not stay in Iraq a day longer than is necessary to stabilize the country.

    "I don't think we're talking about months," one of Mr. Bush's top advisers said of the planned occupation. "But I don't think we're talking a lot of years, either."

    The Command
    Military Joined
    With Civilian

    When administration officials first began publicly discussing the idea of an American military administration for Iraq, the reaction in the Arab world was swift: The Arabs wanted no American Caesar in Iraq, no symbol of a colonial governor. "The last thing we need," a senior official said, in an allusion to General MacArthur, "is someone walking around with a corncob pipe, telling Iraqis how to form a government."

    As a result, the steering group on Iraq policy is now discussing a hybrid command with an American military commander in charge of security and some kind of civilian administrator — of theoretically equal influence — to get the schools running, the oil fields pumping and the economy jump-started. It is not clear whether that administrator would be an American or if the United Nations would take the lead in that part of the operation.

    It is widely assumed that in the first chaotic months, the military commander will have unquestioned authority. "Remember, you will have decapitated the command and control for the Iraqi military forces," a senior official said. "Who is going to make sure that score-settling does not break out, that there is not fights between the various ethnic communities? It is going to have to be the U.S. military for some period of time, and if there is a military command, there will certainly be a military commander."

    But the handover of more and more responsibility from the military administration to an international civilian administration — and several years down the road to an Iraqi-run government — is still murky. Officials, referring to the ruling Baath Party, say "de-Baathification" of the nation will be at least as complex as de-Nazification was in Germany.

    "We know one thing," said a diplomat involved in the planning. "Things will have to come together a lot faster than they have in Afghanistan."

    The Oil
    Protecting It
    For the Iraqis

    There is no more delicate question for the administration than how to deal with Iraq's oil reserves — the world's second largest, behind Saudi Arabia's — and how to raise money from oil sales for rebuilding without prompting charges that control of oil, not disarming Iraq, is Mr. Bush's true aim.

    Administration officials have been careful always to talk about Iraqi oil as the property of the Iraqi people. But in the White House, the major concern is that Mr. Hussein may plan to destroy the oil infrastructure in the first days of any war, while trying to make it appear as if the destruction was the work of American forces.

    "What happens if he started systematically destroying the fields?" a senior official said. "It's a big source of concern, and we are trying to take account of it as we plan how to use our military forces."

    Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, speaking on Dec. 29, hinted at such a military plan when he said, "If coalition forces go into those oil fields, we would want to protect those fields and make sure that they are used to benefit the people of Iraq, and are not destroyed or damaged by a failing regime on the way out the door."

    The White House has already concluded that the United Nations' oil-for-food program, under which Iraq is permitted to sell a limited amount of oil to buy civilian goods, will have to be amended quickly so oil revenues can be used more broadly in the country. But it is unclear how the administration plans to finesse the question of Iraq's role in OPEC and who would represent occupied Iraq at the organization's meetings.

    The administration is already anticipating that neighboring Arab nations may accuse occupied Iraq of pumping oil beyond OPEC quotas. One official said Washington "fully expects" that the United States will be suspected of undermining the oil organization, and it is working on strategies, which he would not describe, to allay those fears.

    The remainder of the article can be found here:
  2. The US has every interest in dismantling OPEC, piece by piece... Iraq is first... my opinion is that Venezuela, Iran or Saudi Arabia will be next...

    This whole game is not about religion, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction or Saddam... its simple Imperialism, manifesting itself in a three letter word: Oil...
  3. uhh... now the war is about the "economy" :confused:

    Jan. 5, 2003

    This is only the latest twist in the U.S. president's struggle to come up with the top 10 reasons for invading Iraq — or at least one reason that stands up to minimal scrutiny.

    His most oft-cited reason — that Iraq has "weapons of mass destruction" which threaten world security — seems less and less convincing. After weeks of unimpeded U.N. inspections, no evidence of such weapons seems to have been found.

    Meanwhile, North Korea has blithely declared its intention to revive its nuclear weapons program, kicked out U.N. inspectors and talked of plans for a "bold offensive" in the coming year.

    Anxious to get on with the invasion of Iraq — a conflict in which the U.S. president has threatened to use nuclear weapons — Bush last week came up with a new reason to invade. "An attack from (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein or a surrogate of Saddam Hussein would cripple our economy," Bush told reporters at his Texas ranch. "Our economy is strong, it's resilient, we've got to continue to make it strong and resilient. This economy cannot afford to stand an attack."

    Of course, economic benefits are often an undeclared factor in a decision to wage war. Certainly, gaining control over Iraq's oil is one of the top 10 undeclared reasons for invading Iraq; that and its defencelessness explain why Iraq is the U.S. target of choice these days, while nuclear-toting North Korea has to wait in line to get the attention of Washington's warhawks.

  4. maxpi


    I hope that happens, "open that danged tap buddy". Talk about your tax dollars at work!!

    As far as inspectors go, Iraq had years to hide stuff, it could be in the neighboring countries for all we know and could take decades to find. I know that if I were an inspector in a police state like Iraq I probably would not be making a lot of noise about what I found until I was safely out of the country.

  5. people run for political office to help themselves and their powerful friends who can reward them with soft money and other perks; the bushes have been no exception to this, and more often than not, those "powerful friends" sometimes even become their cabinet members or vice-presidents...

    just the way it is!

  6. So now we are supposed to be supporting OPEC or else we are imperialists?
  7. Giggle.:eek:
  8. why do you and a couple others always point out the fact that we are imperialist out to take the oil........and then forget time and again that we could do it now or COULD have done it numerous times? I could have sworn we liberated Kuwait (20% of worlds oil reserves) , had a parade, put out the oil well fires and flipped them the keys and said see you later....Remember when Iran had the hostages? Perfect excuse to invade and occupy....what's even funnier is the Venezuela reference...they are having civil war for the umpteenth time so its our fault?
    Hell, if all we wanted was oil, we could just ask Mexico....they are sitting on a ton of it and would give it all up if we let them become a state!..
  9. what are you saying TM, that candle should start taking an interest in facts for a change?
    why, what a novel idea...

  10. as if i'd really bother continue reading an article that uses such childish tactics.
    nice goin' picking this article out from the liberal press trash heap madison -- wild would be proud.
    #10     Jan 8, 2003