[Thoran]

While I'm not quite as fatalistic, I think it's a big mistake to assume the Arab world will accept US Military Governance of Iraq like everyone accepted governance of Japan. Those guys don't seem to cope very well with percieved encroachment on their turf (and I think some of the radicals believe the whole world is their turf [img]smile.gif[/img] ). Instead of spending two years setting up their infrastructure and governance systems, we'd spend 20 years fighting every kid with a gun or a bomb infiltrating accross the border, and I don't think peaceful resistance is even in their vocabulary (IMO - Palestine would be free today if they spent more time studying Ghandi instead of those dumb radical Islamic texts)

I think that Bush is laying it on thick with the gun slinging act and fervently hope this is all just posturing to push the Iraqi's to deal with Saddam themselves... Slowly ratchet up the pressure until something gives. I seriously doubt though that this is all being done so we can get in and exploit Iraqi oil fields, there's enough players in that market that Iraq isn't THAT important... however this could partly be an attempt to keep US citizen focus out there instead of on our economic problems (which he appears to be doing nothing about).

P1 of the article:

U.S. Has a Plan to Occupy Iraq, Officials Report By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT ASHINGTON, Oct. 10 — The White House is developing a detailed plan, modeled on the postwar occupation of Japan, to install an American-led military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam Hussein, senior administration officials said today. The plan also calls for war-crime trials of Iraqi leaders and a transition to an elected civilian government that could take months or years. Advertisement In the initial phase, Iraq would be governed by an American military commander — perhaps Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of United States forces in the Persian Gulf, or one of his subordinates — who would assume the role that Gen. Douglas MacArthur served in Japan after its surrender in 1945. One senior official said the administration was "coalescing around" the concept after discussions of options with President Bush and his top aides. But this official and others cautioned that there had not yet been any formal approval of the plan and that it was not clear whether allies had been consulted on it. The detailed thinking about an American occupation emerges as the administration negotiates a compromise at the United Nations that officials say may fall short of an explicit authorization to use force but still allow the United States to claim it has all the authority it needs to force Iraq to disarm. In contemplating an occupation, the administration is scaling back the initial role for Iraqi opposition forces in a post-Hussein government. Until now it had been assumed that Iraqi dissidents both inside and outside the country would form a government, but it was never clear when they would take full control. Today marked the first time the administration has discussed what could be a lengthy occupation by coalition forces, led by the United States. Officials say they want to avoid the chaos and in-fighting that have plagued Afghanistan since the defeat of the Taliban. Mr. Bush's aides say they also want full control over Iraq while American-led forces carry out their principal mission: finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction. The description of the emerging American plan and the possibility of war-crime trials of Iraqi leaders could be part of an administration effort to warn Iraq's generals of an unpleasant future if they continue to support Mr. Hussein. Asked what would happen if American pressure prompted a coup against Mr. Hussein, a senior official said, "That would be nice." But the official suggested that the American military might enter and secure the country anyway, not only to eliminate weapons of mass destruction but also to ensure against anarchy. Under the compromise now under discussion with France, Russia and China, according to officials familiar with the talks, the United Nations Security Council would approve a resolution requiring the disarmament of Iraq and specifying "consequences" that Iraq would suffer for defiance. It would stop well short of the explicit authorization to enforce the resolution that Mr. Bush has sought. But the diplomatic strategy, now being discussed in Washington, Paris and Moscow, would allow Mr. Bush to claim that the resolution gives the United States all the authority he believes he needs to force Baghdad to disarm. Other Security Council members could offer their own, less muscular interpretations, and they would be free to draft a second resolution, authorizing the use of force, if Iraq frustrated the inspection process. The United States would regard that second resolution as unnecessary, senior officials say. "Everyone would read this resolution their own way," one senior official said. The revelation of the occupation plan marks the first time the administration has described in detail how it would administer Iraq in the days and weeks after an invasion, and how it would keep the country unified while searching for weapons. It would put an American officer in charge of Iraq for a year or more while the United States and its allies searched for weapons and maintained Iraq's oil fields.

[ 10-11-2002, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]