<a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,929280,00.html">
Unhappy endings</a>
"The world is upside down. The three left-of-centre dailies - the Guardian, the Independent and the Mirror - are all the most hostile to the Labour government's war, while the rightwing press largely urges it on. This is a wretched state of affairs for those who wish this government well, watching it plunge headlong into what looks like a serious error. Europe is fractured, other alliances and friendships lost, leaving Britain marooned with George Bush. Colin Powell's sweep through Old Europe yesterday delivered a direct snub to any serious role for the UN rebuilding Iraq. The background roars from the president's stomach-churning speech in North Carolina were a display of patriotic histrionics to appal the world.
Yet what if it does end well and Tony Blair proves right after all? Those who oppose the war can only hope to eat their words: nothing wrong with humble pie. So let us examine the government's scenario for everything going right. At the moment, it goes as follows.

Republican Guard battalions have melted away under catastrophic bombardment. Stout resistance remains and Baghdad may not fall in a day but it will not be Stalingrad. There is no great hurry - Basra is the patient way to take towns, gradually. The regime will fall with fewer British and US losses than in any conflict in history: civilian deaths will be proportionate. Rolling news deceives with its hungry demands for a new Band of Brothers episode every hour, but war doesn't work like that. All in all, the government sounds calmly certain that all will be well. Since we know nothing, let's assume all will be tolerably well.

It was always the aftermath that was in doubt - in Iraq and in the world. How believable is Blair's version? He promises to persuade the US that it cannot rule Iraq alone. The US needs the UN not just for humanitarian aid, but for reconstruction. The US needs the UN for money, for legitimacy and to avoid inflaming the Arab world. "Iraq for the Iraqis," Blair promises. As for the French and Germans, they will see the error of their ways and hasten to rebuild good relations with the US: it will start with a meeting like the UN-sponsored Bonn conference that determined Afghanistan's postwar settlement. Britain will prove it is again a strong bridge between the US and EU. Then Bush will head off down the roadmap to peace in Palestine, while Iraq holds free elections, the Arab world sees a beacon of democracy in their midst and the world is a safer place.

All that would be excellent. The only trouble with the Blair vision is that it is exceedingly difficult to find anyone anywhere who believes it will happen - certainly not the White House. That is not their vision at all, as Powell made brutally clear yesterday. They have done the fighting, so why hand the peace over to the French and Russians on the security council?

The UN can do humanitarian, but not a single US soldier will wear a blue hat. Instead General Jay Garner and his battery of 24 Pentagon-approved Americans will run every ministry, with a tame Iraqi exile each. Contracts will not be awarded by a UN fair procurement process: why give the French or Russians anything? A new Iraqi government will be US and Israel-friendly: what happens when the Iraqis don't vote that way is just blanked out of their minds.

It gets worse. John Bolton, assistant secretary of state, visiting the Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs in London, was already musing publicly on a coming pre-emptive strike on Iran. Russia is building Iran a nuclear capability that could give it weapons within months, he said. Better to knock it out first - a necessity as soon as it is spoken. For Iran faced with Iraq as a US satellite on one side with Israel's nuclear power on the other will respond to this pincer threat. The director of the Royal Institute listened to Bolton aghast. US conviction that a free Iraq will spread light and freedom all about it is not shared by those who know the region.

Nor does most of Europe believe in Blair's happy ending. Indeed, Powell killed it in Brussels yesterday. Since it has taken until now for the Germans and French finally to say in public that they hope Saddam will lose the war, there is hardly a close rapprochement on either side. Here the Blair-bridge vision halts.

The postwar landscape looks bleaker by the day, international law fractured, the UN bust. The only optimism comes from triumphalist White House hawks or from the Downing Street dream factory - though their visions are quite different. Elsewhere it is hard to find observers who feel anything but alarm at what is yet to come. Look back at Afghanistan, controlled by warlords still, severely underfunded and under-policed, all reconstruction money still spent on basic feeding, a place forgotten as the world moves on. Will Iraq fare much better?

There is one streak of hope on the grey horizon, though Blair may not see it that way. There is a chance now that the shock of schism may shake Europe into a new unity. All Europe, Britain included, is agreed that Iraqi reconstruction must be done under UN auspices - and that means what it says. This unity of purpose offers Britain's best chance to get back inside a newly purposeful Europe, with its own progressive mission as upholders of multinationalism and international law.

Powell offered only a dim UN role: an appointee would act as "the UN's eyes and ears" on a US-run interim Iraq administration. No amount of diplomatic verbiage can obscure the difference between a genuine UN operation and a nominal one. Chirac having taken the high moral ground on the war, to enormous approval in the polls, will not endorse a fix. Nor will the Russians or Germans - nor can Blair now. Unless the White House has a remarkable conversion, this gap looks unbridegable and the prime minister will soon be confronted again with that choice he never means to make - the choice between the Atlantic and the Channel. It is crucial that this time he jumps back with Europe to support the UN.

Right across Europe there is a new sense of purpose, as people wake up to their new responsibilities now they have let go of the American umbrella they have idled under lazily since the war. When Joschka Fischer, a Green minister in an instinctively pacifist nation, can announce that Germany must at last help build a European defence strategy, then a stronger Europe may be in sight. The French and Germans are not calling it a "counterweight" to the US, but less aggressively, simply "a weight".

Wars are political milestones: the EU trauma over Iraq could now forge a stronger Europe, better connected to its peoples, who have stood almost unanimously against the war. But it depends on Blair choosing Europe. In the grim uncertainty this war will leave in its wake, the world will need the EU as a strong and independent voice as never before. Those on the left who have hesitated over Europe should see now that the game has changed."

<font color="#C0C0C0">and from Le Monde, <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/recherche_articleweb/1,9687,315337,00.html?query=powell&query2=&booleen =et&num_page=1&auteur=&dans=dansarticle&periode=30 &ordre=pertinence&debutjour=&de butmois=&debutannee=&finjour=&finmois=&finannee=&G _NBARCHIVES=769+291">
Colin Powell face à des Européens moins divisés sur l'après-guerre</a>
</font>
"the American Secretary of State, who wants to start in Brussels the debate on post-Saddam Iraq, will find Europe hostile to an American seizure on the rebuilding and the transition in Iraq. Europe is much less divided on this topic than with the preceding phase.

That they approve or not of the the military intervention, that they take part in it or not, <u>all</u> of the European countries, like Russia, are decided on the need to a return of the management of the crisis to the UN as soon as the weapons are still."

I think that the liberal smattering of currency signs would be well applied all over that article.

Europe is $ united in it's demand $$ that the UN $$$ direct all recon-$$$-struction efforts. $$

I guess once all the dirty work is done then those on their high horses will deign to climb down long enough to cash in on reconstruction eh?

I think you are misinterpreting the issues.
As far as reconstruction money is concerned, Europe is not particularly bothered if the US wants to pay for reconstruction the costs, and only allows US companies to bid for those tenders. In fact, Europe is demanding that the US/UK pay for the reconstruction as it is their legal duty to do so.

The contention begins to arise when Iraqi money (from oil) goes to US companies, or when Iraqi national industries suddenly find themselves in US hands.

But money isn't the real issue here (as yet) - the issue is whether the US will make good on it's promise of "Iraq for the Iraqi's" - so far, there is no indication that this promise will be kept.

So far there is NO indication this promise will NOT be kept. None, zero, zip... absolutely none whatsoever. There is wild speculation that the promise won't be kept, and propaganda that the US is only interested in Iraq to control it's oil, but that is all it is. Speculation and nothing more. ;)

[img]graemlins/jawdrop.gif[/img] Surely you are not so naive. Everyone wants their companies to be in on the pie - why wouldn't they? They DO care.

As for post-war government, I know that it's already being put together in D.C. by Iraqi-Americans recruited by the government at seminars held mostly in Michigan (which has a *huge* Iraqi community, FYI). I'm trying to find an article on it, and I will post it on the forum.

The bottom line is the only people who have any importance after is the Iraqi's. So if they accept whatever governemnt is put in place then France, Russia, and whoever else has no saying or importance period.

America, Britain, and other coalition members are putting in the blood sweat and tear's now and will so after. I am sure the new Iraqi government will look at those countries first for any deal's involving money. All contracts with Sadam will become a non factor (like that huge oil deal he had with France). Shame

I don't for a minute believe I'm misinterpreting the article. Reconstruction costs will be payed for by Iraqi oil not coalition funds, and who wouldn't want in on the action.

They want to keep their contracts and agreements, they want to keep their companies plugged into the Iraqi economy.

If the UN is administering reconstruction then it's a safe bet that all countries will be represented in reconstruction. If the coalition or a coalition installed government administers reconstruction, the non-coalition EU countries won't be making much money in Iraq for a while.

<font color = lightgreen>Rest assured that a provisional government will be appointed--by the Coalition and not the UN--and then public elections will be held within 2 years. This will allow the Iraqi people to choose for themselves who the first post-Hussein leader will be; most likely their government will be some sort of Parliamentary setup (that form is popular and works reasonably well).

The UN should have nothing to do with the reconstuction of Iraq. As a body it did not want to remove Hussein, so why should it get to sit in on the post-Hussein reconstruction? The UN can watch from the sidelines and continue to sit on its own thumb. (No, I don't like the UN at all, in case you can't tell. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] )

On the other hand, the more that companies from many countries, including France, Germany, Russia, etc. invest in the reconstruction of Iraq the more the economy of Iraq will be woven into the world economy. This will force Iraq into a choice--isolate itself again (and lag behind) or continue to grow as a member of the world economic community (and enjoy a new era of prosperity). No, the prosperity won't happen right away for the common Iraqi citizen, but within a decade the situation should be much better. In the meantime, the reconstructing companies should hire as many native Iraqis as possible to help funnel money into the hands of those who need it.

Just like in Afghanistan, the two most worrisome problems that will face post-Hussein Iraq are 1) regional warlords and 2) pro-Hussein lackeys trying to become an organized force in the new government.</font>

Hang on, wasn't the port at Umm Qaasr a national state run industry?
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0330-08.htm
Oh, guess not.
But the oil is a national industry right?
Well maybe not for long...
http://www.greenleft.org.au/current/532p16.htm

Why wouldn't we? Because Europeans are not Americans - we don't share the same values. If we did, topless bathing would be common on US beaches, eh? ;)

An army will be camped on their soil - what choice do they have but to accept the imposed government? Only a *POPULAR VOTE* can say what the Iraqi's want - and yes, even the Ba'ath party should be allowed to stand for election, because that is democracy.

What was the $75billion that congress voted for then? A good deal of the money will be channeled through USAID - and that I have no problem with.

Fair enough - if you don't mind another 9/11, followed by 10/11, 11/11, 12/11...

Cute, but a non-answer. A German/French company has already entered a bid on providing wireless service in Iraq. French ambassadors have flat-out said the coalition should not be the only nations to rebuild. UK newspapers are widely and wildly reporting concerns that UK companies won't get a fair shake.

It is silly or dishonest of you to pretend European countries don't want to see their private businesses do well or get contracts. EU countries are very supportive of their businesses. Yes, maybe you guys are a bit more used to being hyper-regulated over there, but the general structure and politics of the government vis-a-vis the businesses is the same. Otherwise, a subsidy would not have been provided to AirBus to help it gain control of the market over and above United Airlines.

Plus, I see it as a bit aloof to pretend you have a monopoly on compassion. I promise you that many of us in the US see ourselves as doing a great humanitarian thing here.

Actually, Iraq already has a european GSM network installed - or rather it did until someone bombed it. European companies have indeed done business in Iraq, and other countries. But I'm not sure what your point is there.

Europe doesn't chase money in the same way that the US does.
There are 6 million children in the US without healthcare - there are none in Europe. The gap between rich and poor is tiny in comparison as it is in the US.
We manage that with higher taxes, at a level that just would not be accepted in the US.

Most European countries have a CAP on the amount that a political party may spend on an election - not so in the US. Many European countries even forbid private money in election campaigns and instead the state provides an equal amount of funds to all parties.

Most European countries have a heavy environmental tax on petrol - and europeans are *happy* to pay the costs - not so in the US.

If money meant that much to European countries - most would have backed the US in the UN - in order to reap the profits from the Iraq carve-up. They didn't.

Try to understand that the cultures and values in other countries may not be the same as your own.

In some places in the world, ethics are more important than manna.

lol I asure you skunk 9/11 won't be so easy next time. Kinda easy to pull something off the first time when no one has a clue. Suprise is and has always been the easiest form of attack. A lot harder when every single person is watching out for a sucker punch. A certain few can keep wishing though.

We kinda have these new thing's called security in place. Those planes would be shot out of the air now before they hit any thing. I doubt it owuld even take that since the passengers would simply all die there or over-run the terrorist. Getting into the country is not close to as easy as before. The FBI, CIA, etc are all over known terrorists. Like the three who tried to sneak in from Mexico who never made it.

Since 9/11 Afghanistan has the radical muslim Taliban removed totally. The remaining Al Qaeda have to hide and run every single night to stay ahead. The Iraq government is busy getting it's head chopped off. So while you will always have someone willing to die I wish them the best of luck trying to get in and then finding the chance to do something other then kill a handful of people.

I doubt you will find too many governments willing to support terrorism that targets America directly. I am sure more then a few have took notice of Afghanistan and Iraq. I think people everywhere understand life is a risk and you could die anyday. If that happens then so be it. But to make it sound like a 9/11 is going to happen over and over again is naive to a fault. A couple more 9/11s and I think you will find most Americans willing to take it to every single person and government who want's some. If I was a leader of a terrorist group or a Islamic government then I would go back to attacking Isreal or whatever they wish to do. Putting you're target on America can be deadly.

And last, while 9/11 was horrible the amount killed was not even a hair on a single head. There are over 280 million people in America. If you killed a million it would not even be a hair on a single head. So whoever enjoyed it can rest knowing while we mourn the loss we go on stronger then ever.

And while this may sound arrogant I can not help but be so when I hear "then be ready for another 9/11, 10//11" and the pure naive mindset that takes.

Skunk, ethics are important here too. My firm daily turns away millions of dollars of business based on professional ethical conflicts. We just don't act like we have a moral monopoly or a high horse.

You insinuate that money is the root of the conflict - it's not. This is part of the Circular Discussions (tm) on this thread. And, I find it very, very insulting. Especially in light of the fact that, contrary to your assertion, many European countries were best economically served by arguing for maintaining the status quo.

You are projecting this greedy cowboy image on us again. That's as insulting as many of the anti-France things that have gotten people threatened with suspension.

I still do not understand how you Eurotwits can continually voice this opinion without attracting the ire of the Mods, yet just let me point out your namby-pamby unwillingness to *do* anything about a problem other than think it to death and the mods come running.

C'mon mods - come running.

[ 04-04-2003, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Sure... rub it in you bastard!

[img]smile.gif[/img]

That money is to pay for costs incurred during the execution of the war, sure there's some short term humanitarian aid in there but the bulk is military in nature, along with some aid to us companies impacted by the war. The bulk of reconstruction will be financed by Iraq, and it will be a huge sum of money (no doubt dwarfing the 75 billion the US is spending on the war itself).

This prognostication will be far more impacted by how long it takes Iraqi's to gain control of their country... and that is true UN or no.

<font color="#C0C0C0">I hear you - and I'll make one last statement on this thread.

If the US were to use Iraqi funds for the reconstruction - that would contravene the Geneva Convention and would amount to theft under international law. And this insignificant detail (to the US) would be very significant to the Middle East at large.

The UN is not hated in the Middle East - the US (and now the UK) overwhelmingly is. The Middle East view this as an occupation and the first 'Oil War'. In fact, if you glance over 'unrestricted' Middle Eastern media, you will discover that it is not refered to as "Operation Iraqi Freedom' - but invariably one of three things:</font>
America's War of Agression
The Oil War
America's Imperial War
<font color="#C0C0C0">A US 'colonial' administration reporting to a US general will only cement this view, as indeed will the installation of a 'puppet' government and the implementation of a political/economical system which was not chosen by the Iraqi people.

Furthermore, if the US does indeed go ahead with the publicised plans to *privatise* the Iraqi oil industry, hand its control over to US oil companies, and force Iraq to leave OPEC, the charge that this war was about oil will *never* go away - and neither will the hatred.

But setting aside the Middle East at large, what do Iraqi's think? Well, let's look at the Shi'ites, the largest group in Iraq. They've suffered under Saddam as much as the Kurds. Do they welcome the US?

Yes and No.

Saddam pulled the trigger on so many thousands of Shi'ites - and they hate him for that. But it was the US that told them to stand in the firing line - and then promptly left them to their fate. Saddam would not have come for them if it had not been for the US encouraging them to rise up in the first place - and they havn't forgotten that or the betrayal.

They don't like the US - and they don't trust them - but they will tolerate the US in the short if the US removes Saddam - but they do not approve of a US military occupation. At the end of their March2003 conference in Tehran, the Iraqi Shi'ite Opposition voiced their anger at the US post-Saddam plans:</font>
"Abu Belal Al-Adeb, spokesman for Islamic Dawa Party, said Washington intends to appoint US officials to run the affairs of Iraqi ministries while hiring some Iraqis as "consultants" in the post-Saddam Iraq.

"This reveals the American ill-will towards Iraq and its colonial goals," he said.

Mohamed Bakir Al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, said that if the Iraqis could not form a new government themselves, the country is bound to be ruled by a US military governor.

"The Shi'ites insist that the future government be in the hands of the Iraqis, so as to establish peace and stability," he said, warning that the imposition of a non-Iraqi military leader to head Iraq would lead to instability."

<font color="#C0C0C0">On the other hand, if the administration was handed over to the UN - which is still seen as neutral - then the hatred towards the US will slowly start to disperse, <u>provided of course, that the US doesn't blacken its hand in Iraq's oil</u>.

For once, the US needs the UN far more than the UN needs the US.</font>

Skunk, you owe it to yourself to read the "Pentagon plans for postwar Iraq" thread I posted on this forum. It's got a link to the ministries that are already being set up in D.C.

Final note: The US *never* has been colonial, nor will it ever be. With rare exception, it has consistently left countries that it "acquired" in one way or another. The Phillipines. Cuba. Micronesia (I think). The list is fairly long and I won't bore you.

I missed that when I made my last post - and it's worth answering before I abandon this thread.

It was Thoran that made the charge that France, China, and Russia were driven by money in their decision to block US/UK attempts to gain UN authorisation for military action in Iraq - I merely stated that European attitudes towards money are not the same as the US.

Our cultures *do* have a different set of values in that respect - the EU is overwhelmingly left-wing in its thinking and this is demonstrated in its social and foreign policy.

In other words, its wrong to judge us by US values. If you read my post as insinuating that the US motivations for this war were dollar driven - you'd be wrong. However, I apologise if this is the message that you received: put it down to my poor writing skills.

<u>*I do not doubt the US's good intent as far as Iraq is concerned - but I am worried that the methods being chosen are unwise, insofar as the consequences will come back to haunt the US for years to come.*</u>

With regards to European interests being best served by maintaining the status quo - this is not true either. Colin Powell and President Bush both stated during the initial discussions for military action, that countries which supported him on this issue would be unlikely to lose any existing trade contracts - whereas countries which opposed him might suffer.

The carrot and threat was quite real and clear.
Vote with us and lose nothing, vote against us and be excluded.

Under those circumstances, the charge that you levied towards the EU is really unfair.

Finally, you can call me a 'EuroTwit', but I'm British - and your ally. (Not everyone living in Amsterdam is Dutch. 7,000 US citizens in this city too!) I consider the US a very old friend. A friend that got mugged a couple of years ago and is still suffering from the experience. And I'm concerned about that old friend because he isn't himself these days. And his strange behaviour is beginning to drive away his friends and attract enemies. :(

And I'm concerned - as a good friend should be...

[ 04-04-2003, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

<font color = lightgreen> [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] The existence of the UN had nothing to do with the events of 11 September 2001. That was strictly an attack against America carried out by the terrorist group Al Queda. I highly doubt they, or any other such group, will get to strike so forceful a blow a second time.</font>

<font color = lightgreen>We don't need the UN. In fact, we have done quite well without its help. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>