US Plans to Occupy Iraq

[Timber Loftis]

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/11/in...al/11PREX.html

Not that I'm surprised, but this is by far the ballsiest thing the administration has come up with. In the modern day, you simply don't annex countries. Oil will be cheap - and I'll bet you President Bush has a plan to rape the country of absolutely every drop he can during the tenure of any occupation. The article refers to "coalition forces led by the U.S." What coalition? [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] The US and UK? Two make a "coalition?"

Anyway, vacation packages to the middle east will be cheaper for a while.

I've said it before: when one country so overwhelmingly overpowers all others, it is either absolutely benevolent or life sucks for all others.

Mr. President should quit playing soldier and fix this problem:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/busin...t-outlook.html

[ 10-11-2002, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Larry_OHF]

Your links do not allow us to see the story unless we register.
Can you just copy some of it for us to read?

[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 ]

[Charean]

It totally freaks me out that they are giving that much power to a president - they are ignoring our constitution in doing so. Giving him unilateral power to call the shots and bypassing Congress scares me witless.

I am not for doing this action as precipitously as it has been pushed through. It alarms me.

Mind you, were I back in the military right now - I would still wonder what the rush is.

I have been listening to the arguements in the House and Senate. One Republican said that we were correcting our complacency for the last 11 years. That is all fine and good, but now??

Something is going on, and I still suspect a political agenda on the part of Bush.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: Your links do not allow us to see the story unless we register. Can you just copy some of it for us to read?

Sure thing, but you should register for nytimes. Arguably the best US Newspaper, and it's Free online. My job absolutely requires I keep up on news to a certain extent, but I never buy a paper. I'm pasting the full (very long) article. The second article I linked to is simply that Lucent is cutting 10,000 jobs in NJ.


A PLAN FOR IRAQ
U.S. Has a Plan to Occupy Iraq, Officials Report
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, 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.

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.

For as long as the coalition partners administered Iraq, they would essentially control the second largest proven reserves of oil in the world, nearly 11 percent of the total. A senior administration official said the United Nations oil-for-food program would be expanded to help finance stabilization and reconstruction.

Administration officials said they were moving away from the model used in Afghanistan: establishing a provisional government right away that would be run by Iraqis. Some top Pentagon officials support this approach, but the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and, ultimately, the White House, were cool to it.

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

Instead, officials said, the administration is studying the military occupations of Japan and Germany. But they stressed a commitment to keeping Iraq unified, as Japan was, and avoiding the kind partition that Germany underwent when Soviet troops stayed in the eastern sector, which set the stage for the cold war. The military government in Germany stayed in power for four years; in Japan it lasted six and a half years.

In a speech on Saturday, Zalmay Khalilzad, the special assistant to the president for Near East, Southwest Asian and North African affairs, said, "The coalition will assume — and the preferred option — responsibility for the territorial defense and security of Iraq after liberation."

"Our intent is not conquest and occupation of Iraq," Mr. Khalilzad said. "But we do what needs to be done to achieve the disarmament mission and to get Iraq ready for a democratic transition and then through democracy over time."

Iraqis, perhaps through a consultative council, would assist an American-led military and, later, a civilian administration, a senior official said today. Only after this transition would the American-led government hand power to Iraqis.

He said that the Iraqi armed forces would be "downsized," and that senior Baath Party officials who control government ministries would be removed. "Much of the bureaucracy would carry on under new management," he added.

Some experts warned during Senate hearings last month that a prolonged American military occupation of Iraq could inflame tensions in the Mideast and the Muslim world.

"I am viscerally opposed to a prolonged occupation of a Muslim country at the heart of the Muslim world by Western nations who proclaim the right to re-educate that country," said the former secetary of state, Henry A. Kissinger, who as a young man served as a district administrator in the military government of occupied Germany.

While the White House considers its long-term plans for Iraq, Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, arrived in Moscow this evening for a day and a half of talks with President Vladimir V. Putin. Aides said talks were focused on resolving the dispute at the United Nations. Mr. Blair and Mr. Putin are to hold formal discussions on Friday, followed by a news conference.

Mr. Blair has been a steadfast supporter of the administration's tough line on a new resolution. But he has also indicated that Britain would consider France's proposal to have a two-tiered approach, with the Security Council first adopting a resolution to compel Iraq to cooperate with international weapons inspectors, and then, if Iraq failed to comply, adopting a second resolution on military force. Earlier this week, Russia indicated that it, too, was prepared to consider the French position.

But the administration is now saying that if there is a two-resolution approach, it will insist that the first resolution provide Mr. Bush all the authority he needs.

"The timing of all this is impossible to anticipate," one administration official involved in the talks said. "The president doesn't want to have to wait around for a second resolution if it is clear that the Iraqis are not cooperating

[Timber Loftis]

Erm - Thoran beat me to it.
Oh, and Thoran: best estimates are that Iraq has almost as much oil in the ground as Suadi. Believe me, if we're drilling in Alaska (already approved and I think begun - but it will be 20 years til we're yanking the oil out) we certainly are *that* concerned with oil.

[ 10-11-2002, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Ronn_Bman]

If I remember correctly, Japan and West Germany came out of US, and in the case of WG British and French, occupation in pretty great shape. Probably the only two nations on the Earth to lose a major war and end up better off than before through the help of their former enemy.

[ 10-11-2002, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

I'll be the first to admit that I don't completely understand all the "subtle nuances" referred to in the article, but I don't see that Bush is being given unilateral power and allowed to bypass the Congress.

The article states that Bush can send in occupation forces IF Saddam is "toppled" from power. THAT cannot be accomplished by force from the U.S. without the approval of Congress. Whether he took action directly against Saddam, or just sent in "occupation forces", it would HAVE to be considered "an Act of War"...and my understanding is that he could do neither of these WITHOUT the express approval of Congress.

Seriously though, Charaen, if I'm "overlooking" something (or simply mis-reading the article) let me know.

While I don't particularly agree with the "threat" that Saddam supposedly represents, I have to admit there a several advantages for Bush to pursue this action. You mentioned a "political agenda", but I think that's only one of the underlying factors.

Look at it from his perspective....

"Should I invade Iraq? If so, why?"
1. Bin Laden escaped my clutches. I still haven't delivered a "villain" to answer for 9/11? And we've hated Saddam for 11 years. He's the perfect substitute for the missing Bin Laden.

2. Taking control of Iraq will give us access to their oil fields. I can use that to lower fuel prices at home (improving the economy and general morale) AND give my BIG OIL buddies access to the TONS and TONS of crude oil that they can stockpile and control.

3. If we invade Iraq, it will increase "anti-American" sentiment among the Arab nations. So what? The Arab nations already hate us. "The Great Satan" is NOT a term of endearment.

4. However, if I DO invade (and take over) Iraq, it just might make the other Arab nations think twice about that "anti-American" stance. It's easy to shout insults at somebody when they don't retaliate. Let's see how quick they are to back up thier taunts and threats once they realize we ain't gonna take it anymore.

5. If I DO successfully "depose" Saddam and occupy Iraq, I can claim a DOUBLE victory during the next election, since I will have "defeated" America's two greatest "modern-day" enemies. That should lead to an easy re-election.

Don't get me wrong...I actually like George Bush, Jr. and I think he has done a far better job that Al Gore would have under the circumstances. (Pure conjecture on my part, I know). But everything ANY politician does contains "political undertones", because almost ALL of them WANT to get re-elected or move up the political ladder in one form or another.

So I am just providing an "honost" evaluation of the advantages for George Bush IF he does invade and occupy Iraq - and these are based on MY perspective alone.

[johnny]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: If I remember correctly, Japan and West Germany came out of US, and in the case of WG British and French, occupation in pretty great shape. Probably the only two nations on the Earth to lose a major war and end up better off than before through the help of their former enemy.

Don't flatter yourself TOO much dude. Nations like Germany and Japan will always be on top, because of the attitude of the people there. They are hard workers and make exellent products, no matter what it is. And that has nothing at all to do with ANY outside influence whatsoever. So don't overrate that so called help.

[Timber Loftis]

Ronn:

First, I think the acts of the two superpowers you mentioned during WWII convinced the whole world that the countries should be baby-sat for a bit. A bit more egregious that Sodamn Insanse's for sure. Second, though I don't have my international law books handy, I'm pretty sure international law governing this has changed much since them - which is exactly why Sodamn could not simply *occupy* Kuwait a decade ago.

Also, don't know if the changes are good or not, but Japanese contact with the west *changed* it drastically. It's culture, while still very different from the US, was certainly robbed of a lot because western influence - influnce at the point of a gun, mind you. Religion and forms of government and economy all basically forced on the country. Check out a bit of history, and tell me if it's fair - then tell me if we should support doing the same to others.

First contact with the West came in about 1542, when a Portuguese ship off course arrived in Japanese waters. Portuguese traders, Jesuit missionaries, and Spanish, Dutch, and English traders followed. Suspicious of Christianity and of Portuguese support of a local Japanese revolt, the shoguns of the Tokugawa period (1603–1867) prohibited all trade with foreign countries; only a Dutch trading post at Nagasaki was permitted. Western attempts to renew trading relations failed until 1853, when Commodore Matthew Perry sailed an American fleet into Tokyo Bay. Trade with the West was forced upon Japan under terms less than favorable to the Japanese. Strife caused by these actions brought down the feudal world of the shoguns. In 1868, the emperor Meiji came to the throne, and the shogun system was abolished.
*****
Gen. Douglas MacArthur was appointed supreme commander of the U.S. occupation of postwar Japan (1945–52). In 1947, a new constitution took effect. The emperor became largely a symbolic head of state. The U.S. and Japan signed a security treaty in 1951, allowing for U.S. troops to be stationed in Japan. In 1952, Japan regained full sovereignty, and, in 1972, the U.S. returned to Japan the Ryuku Islands, including Okinawa.

Link: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107666.html

[ 10-11-2002, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]