If/when Saddam is gone........

gandalf

Right this has been firing around my mind for the last few days.

If/when Saddam is removed either by war, assassination or exile and the Iraqi people are eventually allowed to have a democratic election. If they elect a Anti-US or Islamic extremist government what will the US do then? Will they respect their decision or will they interfere?

Personally I feel the US government will not be happy until they have control over all that nice crude to ensure they're SUV's have plentiful supplies for the future !!

Gandalf.

DadaKopf

I think the fact that the US openly supports non-deomocratic governments in the region proves that America isn't in this for deomcracy. Even worse is that they supported Saddam's regime when it suited them.

They'll look after their own economic interests and get in who they want.

shotamoose

The New York Times has a long story today - based on what it says are sources within the US government - detailing 'final plans for administering and democratizing Iraq after the expected ouster [?] of Saddam Hussein'. There's really not that much in the story about democratizing Iraq (Iraqis will 'eventually' elect a national legislature, apparently) , with the bulk of it concentrating on military and security forces maintaining Iraq's 'territorial integrity' after regime change. It's all quite vague, and you get the sense that Bush et al have not arrived at a final plan for post-Saddam Iraq. It's still interesting though, and I'll post it here for those without NYT subscriptions.

---

January 6, 2003
U.S. Is Completing Plan to Promote a Democratic Iraq
By DAVID E. SANGER and JAMES DAO

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."

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."

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."

[continued ...]

shotamoose

[continued ....]

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.

Mr. Bush has been warning since October that Iraqi generals who obeyed any orders to use chemical or biological weapons against American troops would be punished, perhaps as war criminals.

Now, as part of the effort to undermine Mr. Hussein's government and get evidence that has so far eluded United Nations inspectors, the White House is putting a slightly different spin on that kind of talk.

Those who have helped build Mr. Hussein's weapons stockpile, officials say, may win some redemption by helping inspectors — and American forces.

That approach appears to be part of a strategy to encourage a coup and persuade military leaders and scientists to give up the country's chemical and biological stockpiles and its nuclear research efforts. "The politics of Iraq are so opaque that it's just hard to know what is or isn't rumbling under the surface," one of Mr. Bush's most senior advisers said. As a result, the president is looking to create "maximum pressure" on the top leadership.

Already the C.I.A. and others have drawn up lists of Mr. Hussein's top command and the heads of his security forces who would probably be put on trial.

One State Department working group is studying a kind of "truth and reconciliation" process, modeled after the one in South Africa, which could publicly shame, but not necessarily punish, human rights violators.

Few issues have divided the administration more bitterly than how to create a transitional Iraqi government that could serve as a bridge between the American military occupation and a permanent, democratic government. The issue reflects the administration's ideological fault lines, and in recent months Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, has stepped in, as one senior aide said, "to make sure there was not a public food fight on this one."

White House officials say that those divisions have now been resolved, and that while planning is going forward, the United States will not overtly install a provisional government or designate its leaders.

The division was a familiar one. Senior civilian officials in the Pentagon and some advisers to Vice President Dick Cheney argued for the creation of a provisional government even before Baghdad falls. It would be led, at least initially, by Iraqi exiles. The proponents argue that such a government in exile would speed creation of a permanent government if Mr. Hussein is removed, allowing United States forces to withdraw sooner. Among the reported advocates were Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who wants the military's role to be brief.

"The quicker you get a transition from military victory to transitional government, the better," a senior Pentagon official said. "We want to be there as long as necessary, but as short as possible."

On the other side of the debate are advocates of giving more power to Iraqis now living in Iraq. These advocates, mainly in the State Department and C.I.A., say the Iraqi exiles have no legitimacy among the Iraqi people. One proposal favored by State Department officials calls for having an international civilian agency, advised by Iraqis and protected by allied peacekeeping forces, run the nation while Iraqis elect local governments, create a new constitution and eventually select a national legislature, somewhat along the postwar model of Afghanistan.

The White House has tried to finesse those differences by saying it favors a government formed by "free Iraqis" both inside and outside Iraq.

But inside the Pentagon there are doubts. "The argument that you have to leave seats at the table for people inside Iraq has one problem: there is no one inside," said a senior official who supports the Iraqi National Congress.

An official close to Mr. Bush acknowledged that "there are not a lot of free Iraqis inside Iraq." Pausing, he added, "But there will be."

---

Saruman

If saddam goes.. his son will take over and i think he is probably worse than his father!! So unless the US take him out and take control of the country they will simply exchange 1 tyrant for another.

Oh and there was an article i read recently that it was the US who armed Iraq even down to giving them the chemicals needed to make the biological weapons they now dont want them to have... That was when Iraq helped the US with Iran.. oh how the tables have turned!!

shotamoose

Originally posted by Saruman

Oh and there was an article i read recently that it was the US who armed Iraq even down to giving them the chemicals needed to make the biological weapons they now dont want them to have... That was when Iraq helped the US with Iran.. oh how the tables have turned!!

That was also discussed at length here .

DadaKopf

There's really not that much in the story about democratizing Iraq (Iraqis will 'eventually' elect a national legislature, apparently) , with the bulk of it concentrating on military and security forces maintaining Iraq's 'territorial integrity' after regime change. It's all quite vague, and you get the sense that Bush et al have not arrived at a final plan for post-Saddam Iraq.

Most of this article, I think, concentrates much more on the immense problems America has in overcoming itself than it does on democratising Iraq.

It says that two major issues are 1) how Saddam leaves power and 2) how the US invasion is perceived. Firstly, Saddam will not go without a fight so this itself implies a greater use of military force. Secondly, the American military has rarely been perceived as a positive presence in any country bar, perhaps, Europe following WWII. Given the perception of the US in the Middle East anyway, I can't see the US military being embraced by the people as liberators as easily as they believe.

Their proposition of a hybrid government is going to bring problems, too. These problems are already evident in the US bureaucracy itself: there's constant strife between the civilian attitudes of the Dept of State and the blood and iron policies of the Dept of Defence. This kind of ideological quagmire was also at work in Somalia when UN personnel leaked confidential military plans to the tribes in the interests of openness and transparency. Clearly, the US is attempting to take power away from the UN but in attempting to come across as benefactor, they may appoint a UN administrator, which will only further destabilise the newly formed governmentther (possibly deliberate) reliance on the military.

There's a distinct lack of clarity in terms of the US's goals, too. When they say "preserve Iraq as a unitary state", do they intend to respect the rights of ethnic minorities etc. in Iraq? How to they propose to unify the cultural differences in Iraq? How will they control, for example, the Kurds' will to secede? (This problem feeds into the above paragraph, also). For security purposes from a US standpoint, keeping Iraq unitary is paramount but how they'll do this is debateable. I can't imagine how they'll unite the people but I presume it'll involve the people's ability to buy nice things.

shotamoose

Originally posted by DadaKopf

When they say "preserve Iraq as a unitary state", do they intend to respect the rights of ethnic minorities etc. in Iraq? How to they propose to unify the cultural differences in Iraq? How will they control, for example, the Kurds' will to secede? (This problem feeds into the above paragraph, also). For security purposes from a US standpoint, keeping Iraq unitary is paramount but how they'll do this is debateable. I can't imagine how they'll unite the people but I presume it'll involve the people's ability to buy nice things. [/B]

Seems to me like they'll find it very hard to democratise Iraq while simultaneously keeping it a nice whole. In fact, the two are inherently contradictory - what if the Iraqi people democratically decide to split the country up? Perhaps the US will discover that only a military dictator can keep the country in one piece.

DadaKopf

Yeah. That'll be exactly the kind of justification they'll need for the military to run the whole show. Still, it'd be a PR nightmare for them.

Victor

Originally posted by NYT
and quick takeover of the country's oil fields to pay for reconstruction.

With the oil being sold at what price? One wonders will only American (and maybe British) companies get construction contracts (which was very much the situation in Kuwait)? Will the bin Laden family (one of the largest contractors in the Middle East) get contracts?

Originally posted by NYT
how an occupied Iraq would be represented in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, if at all.

Now if Iraq remained outside OPEC and it's oil was under the control of an administrator (perhaps an American) desparate for cash, I wonder which way the price of oil would go.

DadaKopf

Well, whatever price the oil goes for, it's a smart way for America to subvert OPEC's monopoly. They'll take all they need to pay for the war and then some. Presumably Britain is in on it, too.

bonkey

Originally posted by gandalf
Personally I feel the US government will not be happy until they have control over all that nice crude to ensure they're SUV's have plentiful supplies for the future !!

I dont think that oil is even the issue. It might be related as to why the US wants to oust Saddam, but it isnt really a significant factor in figuring what will be an acceptable solution.

One need only look at relatively recent events in Austria and the reactions to them to see that the western world in general considers the "freedom of democracy" to really only be the freedom to choose amongst a set of options which have been defined as "acceptable".

jc

DadaKopf

One need only look at relatively recent events in Austria and the reactions to them to see that the western world in general considers the "freedom of democracy" to really only be the freedom to choose amongst a set of options which have been defined as "acceptable".

Can you elaborate on this a little more, bonkey?

So if it's not about oil, per se, what is it about? Of course it's about oil, but it's not *all* it's about.

It's about placing a regime in Iraq which America (and the West) can trust and do business with. America's already broken Iraq, now they want rebuild it - at highly competitive rates. They've spent years creating that market, now they want to sow the seeds.

One can't underestimate the Islamic threat (as part of a generalised affront to Western cultural imperialism). Iraq is a secular state and it would be important to America to prevent it from going the other way from a political, economic and security perspective.

I suspect, also, it has a lot to do with China. As much as the coalition against terrorism (as fragile as it is) is an attempt to eat up potential allies to China, it's an attempt to cage in China's economic threat to American aspirations in the Far East. The war on Iraq seems like an attempt to open up an alternative market in case China does spread its wings in the far east.

And finally, it's about oil. Just look at who's running the government! Talk about vested interests. They see all this war-talk as a nice way to circumvent OPEC, and their good buddies the IMF and WTO are going to help them.

gandalf

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.

I think that "if at all" at the end of that statement says a awful lot. OPEC have been a pain in the US's side for years. If they get access to the Iraqi oil then they can lower the price of Oil on the International market either by flooding it with Iraqi reserves or threatening OPEC that they will do that. Remember low Oil prices help drive the US ecomony and we all know the US economy is in dire condition at the moment.

So sorry no matter how many times Bush and the Oil Tycoons in the White House deny it we all know this is all about Oil and nothing else.

Gandalf.

lili

for what i heard about the after saddam, american army will stay 16 month for stabiliting the region, an administrator will be named by the UN and for the oil guess who will personaly take care of it? i let you guess........

bingo!!! you found it!
the USA:D

life is not beautiful?
i have the impress to follow a party of the game 'risk'!!
disgusting!!

colster

Firstly the US are reportedly considering occupying Iraq for upto 18 months.
In which time they will probably back an interim government formed from the many Iraqi dissident groups.
This government will have plenty of time and backing to improve the lot of the ordinary Iraqi citizens.
A happy electorate will be more amenable to an outgoing government which has brought about such economic recovery and relative prosperity that any anti-US groupings.
Can we really imagine the Iraqi people voting in another Saddam.
Also, I don't think the US will care too much if the new government is antagonistic or critical of them.

Secondly, I have to agree that the presence of oil in the region is a great incentive to the US.
There is also another factor worth noting.
Now that the cold war is over the Russians are no longer the biggest threats to the US.
China and North Korea are now the more pressing rivals.
A Presence in a number of Middle East countries could lead to missile sites being set up if North Korea continue their development of nuclear weapons.
Also, this presence would thwart any intentions of Russia or China of bringing the Middle East under their economic influence.

halkar

I think the question should be what will happen after 18 months when US drank Iraqi petrol and left? Another Afghanistan ??? We know all about UN and bla bla but Lebanon is still in a mess. After all UN only can do so much and unlike Lebanon, Kosovo, Cyprus Iraq is a big country by land and will take a lot of manpower to control all those areas.

I think Middle East will be in a real mess which even US won't be able to clean up for a long time!! I am extremely against this war and I see no threat from Saddam to US and if there was any he sure could have done something over the past decade. After all unlike Bin Ladin he is the president of a country with hardcore followers. And unlike the previous Gulf war, this one will be more bloodier and many innocent civilians will loose their lives over what? Oil? It is obvious US doesn't care about the people there and it will probably create more terrorist groups and American haters in the region. And probably will cost more American lives in the future too. Not only they don't care about Iraqis, do they actually care about their own while creating more enemies?
I wonder how will they ever catch Saddam when they can't even catch Bin Ladin yet ? He'll probably escape to Cuba or go to Kaddafi and this will give US to attack Cuba or Libya next time

Anyway looks like the world is going into a big dark hole and I hope I am very wrong

DapperGent

I wonder whenever the Saddam goes/is pushed will there be any attempts to give the Kurds a bit of self-determination or a Kurdistan for that matter?

Might piss the Turks off a bit I suppose, but the Kurds are likely to be in trouble no matter how benign a regime supplants Saddam Hussein.

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by bonkey
I dont think that oil is even the issue.

Bonkey, you must go around with your head up your ass...... of course it has nothing to do with oil. Dubya just wants to liberate the Iraqi nation from the curse of an evil dictator . . ..Yeh, right !

bonkey

Originally posted by hallelujajordan
Bonkey, you must go around with your head up your ass

And you must be looking to get banned from this forum with comments like that

Go read the guidelines for posting here, please. Pay attention to the bit about attacking the poster vs. the content of the post.

Alternately, call my bluff and continue with the abuse language. Your call.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Can you elaborate on this a little more, bonkey?

Certainly.

When Jorg Haider and the FPO gained power in 2000, the international outcry was deafening. There was talk of such things as kicking Austria out of the EU. Haider talked about standing down because of the scandals. There were even sanctions levelled at the nation as a result of "letting" a far-right somewhat-extremist party be democratically elected, and particularly because of Haider's own apparent unpalatability to the rest of the western world, especially coming on the heels of some of his comments at the time - praising Hitler's employment policies and hailing SS veterans as "men of honour"

In other words, democracy is fine, as long as you only elect the right type of people. Vote for a less internationally popular/acceptable choice, and all of a sudden, democracy isnt as acceptable as the rhetoric of the west would have us believe.

Austria had a democratic election. The west censured it for the results. This is how "free" the west see's democracy today. I'm just skeptical as to how "free" the democracy in these newly liberated nations (Afghanistan, and a post-Gulf2 Iraq presumably) will be.

So if it's not about oil, per se, what is it about? Of course it's about oil, but it's not *all* it's about.

I should have been more careful in what I said. I do not believe it is about Iraq's oil reserves.

The US is, in my opinion, having another stab at trying to sort out some of the instability in the Middle East, or at least keep a lid on it. If anti-westernism gains much more of a foot-hold, then the oil supplies from the entire region are at risk - both from the effects of war and/or the effects of nations simply choosing to no longer deal with the West.

Yes, the oil in Iraq would be of great use to the West, but if its all about the oil...and getting one back for daddy then maybe someone could explain why the US chose not to depose Saddam a decade ago? Was it not all about the oil then? They had him for the asking, and the US has shown time and time again (both then and now) that it will act in defiance of the UN when it feels it necessary.

So - how come it wasnt all about the oil a decade ago? I would argue because a decade ago, the long-term stability of the region was of far higher importance than Saddam's oil reserves, and the US were well aware that many of the neighbouring nations would not have been happy at all at all with a US invasion of Iraq.

I suspect, also, it has a lot to do with China. As much as the coalition against terrorism (as fragile as it is) is an attempt to eat up potential allies to China, it's an attempt to cage in China's economic threat to American aspirations in the Far East. The war on Iraq seems like an attempt to open up an alternative market in case China does spread its wings in the far east.

Absolutely.

One could equally say that its an attempt to prevent the emergence of another trading bloc(k). Just look at who Iraq's friends are at the moment. Sure, they arent up to much economically just yet, but a decade or three down the line...it could be a serious threat.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by gandalf
I think that "if at all" at the end of that statement says a awful lot. OPEC have been a pain in the US's side for years. If they get access to the Iraqi oil then they can lower the price of Oil on the International market either by flooding it with Iraqi reserves or threatening OPEC that they will do that. Remember low Oil prices help drive the US ecomony and we all know the US economy is in dire condition at the moment.

This reminds me of the attempted coup in Venuzuela recently .... which the USA refused to condemn.

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by bonkey
And you must be looking to get banned from this forum with comments like that

Go read the guidelines for posting here, please. Pay attention to the bit about attacking the poster vs. the content of the post.

Alternately, call my bluff and continue with the abuse language. Your call.

jc

Sorry Bonkey, Didn't mean to offend but I'm not sure I was attacking you personally.

Merely trying to elucidate how someone who seems pretty clever can argue that this impending war is not about oil. I don't know if you listened to Robert Fisk on The Last Word last night but he drew the very obvious and very legitimate parallel between North Korea and Iraq . . . He pointed to the US's determination to invade a country (with massive loss of life) who at the moment present no threat to the rest of the world (or indeed the region itself) and have no intention (and never will have) of invading North Korea (an invasion that you could argue as being far more justified). One wonders if N. Korea hadn't announced the expansion of its nuclear program, would the US have lifted its head at all, although you'd expect that with their massive intelligence resources they would have had an Iraq-like dossier on N. Korea, long before NK's recent announcement.

The US is, in my opinion, having another stab at trying to sort out some of the instability in the Middle East, or at least keep a lid on it.

How can you reconcile this view the US's disgraceful support of Israel, in my view the prime factor in Middle-Eastern unrest. If the US were determined to sort out some of that instability they would do what Bill Clinton did and work to bring the Israeli's and the palestinians together. Can you explain how a ground invasion in Iraq will "sort out some of the instability in the Middle East, or at least keep a lid on it." I'm sorry I just don't see it !

bonkey

Originally posted by hallelujajordan
Merely trying to elucidate how someone who seems pretty clever can argue that this impending war is not about oil.

Well, I've already explained my stance there. Maybe you could show me where I'm wrong?

He pointed to the US's determination to invade a country (with massive loss of life) who at the moment present no threat to the rest of the world (or indeed the region itself) and have no intention (and never will have) of invading North Korea (an invasion that you could argue as being far more justified).

I assume you meant "invading South Korea" here, and are talking about North Korea?

OK, first of all, I fail to see the connection between N.Korea and Iraq. If Iraq is "all about the oil", then what the hell is the connection to N.Korea - who are not known as an oil-rich nation.

One wonders if N. Korea hadn't announced the expansion of its nuclear program, would the US have lifted its head at all, although you'd expect that with their massive intelligence resources they would have had an Iraq-like dossier on N. Korea, long before NK's recent announcement.

When Bush made his Axis of Evil speech (over a year ago?), he singled out two nations - Iraq and N.Korea. His visit to South Korea some months back prompted more rhetoric about the "evilness" of the North Koreans - despite the fact that Bush was talking to people who are seperated from their Northern neighbours by a political (and not cultural) divide, and who may indeed have family across the border.

Since the nuclear program has been restarted, the US has repeatedly insisted that it has no intention of taking military action against North Korea (smart, cause the NK would probably get backed by China).

So I'm wondering what you're driving at. The US did not just raise their heads when the nuclear program recommencement was announced. They did not, have not (and most probably will not) threaten violence or invasion on the N.Koreans. This flies in the face of what you have posted, and I still can't see any connection between this whole area and your assertions that Iraq is about oil.

How can you reconcile this view the US's disgraceful support of Israel, in my view the prime factor in Middle-Eastern unrest. If the US were determined to sort out some of that instability they would do what Bill Clinton did and work to bring the Israeli's and the palestinians together. Can you explain how a ground invasion in Iraq will "sort out some of the instability in the Middle East, or at least keep a lid on it." I'm sorry I just don't see it !

I agree that the Israeli problem should be dealt with, but its not the only problem in the Middle East. It is also not the type of problem which I believe the Bush administration is interested in tackling.

On the other hand, Iraq is a continuing sore spot for the US, what with its continuing anti-American stance, its anti-Israeli stance (payments to the families of suicide bombers, for example), and its continuing fun and games with the west in the last decade concerning embargo's, no-fly zones and their contestation, the possibility of continued WMD research, etc. etc.

This anti-American (or anti-Westernism) stance is what I am referring to. Increasingly, we see the Middle East becoming less and less tolerant of the influence of the West. We see increases in violence, a resurgence in fundamentalism, increased terrorism, etc. Alongside this we see and hear stories about horrific Human Rights Violations - which are increasing in frequency and area.

America is basically trying to enforce the concept of "Peace through Superior Firepower". They are also (one would assume) hoping that this time they get it right - that the replacement government they choose will not turn around and bite them in the ass. But hey, even if it does....they'll be no worse off than today, and may have a few good years in the interim

jc

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by bonkey

I assume you meant "invading South Korea" here, and are talking about North Korea?

What I meant is, as you have pointed out in your post, the US have not and will never have any intention of invading North Korea. The parallel I draw between NK and Iraq is based on George Bush's priciple reasoning for attacking Iraq. That is, to rid the world of an evil dictator, who has been engaging on a program of WMD research, and who is prepared to use these. He has not shown any evidence of these WMD's. The weapons inspectors have not found any evidence of WMD research and Bush/Blair are not prepared to allow the inspectors the amount of time it takes to carry out their work effectively (I'm talking years here rather than weeks).

If you look at North Korea in this context you see a far bigger threat . . . the public development of nuclear weapons . . . . so why is there not equal reason for the Americans to invade North Korea. The answer is that there is plenty of reason but a profound lack of willingness on the Americans part, partly because it would be more dangerous than attacking Iraq, but mostly because there ain't nothin' init for dubya . . . .

Look, the question we all have to ask ourselves is if we examine what is known about both NK and IRAQ, in an unbiased observant way who do we conclude represents the greatest threat to world peace. If we conclude that NK is a bigger threat then there must be another reason for the US/UK determination to invade Iraq. . . . If that reason is not oil, then I challenge you to explain to me what it is?

America is basically trying to enforce the concept of "Peace through Superior Firepower". They are also (one would assume) hoping that this time they get it right - that the replacement government they choose will not turn around and bite them in the ass. But hey, even if it does....they'll be no worse off than today, and may have a few good years in the interim

I almost agree with you here . . . except for "Peace through superior firepower" read "Domination through superior firepower". The US are not interested in world peace. They didn't care too much about East Timor . . . they didn't care about Rwanda. . . .and they don't care about the Iraqi people (just like prior to 9/11 they didn't much care abouth the Afghani people). The US are only interested in protecting their own interests of which, in the middle east they have many. . . .

Finally, I've got to say I think it's just laughable that you attribute any anti-western feelings in the Middle-East to Saddam Hussein and Iraq and that you believe that an invasion of Iraq will serve any other purpose but to send more money to the koffers of the likes of Osama Bin Laden and create many more suicide bombers. The US could to far more to address this growing anti-westernism by putting in place a program that will allow the weapons inspectors to get their job done while at the same time, relaxing the sanctions on Iraq and allowing them to participate in world economics. At the same time he could knuckle down and address the Israeli question in the same way that Bill Clinton tried (and almost succeeded) to do !!!

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey

When Bush made his Axis of Evil speech (over a year ago?), he singled out two nations - Iraq and N.Korea.

He singled out three. The third one was Iran, which makes me very sceptical about a US military occupation increasing rather than decreasing regional stability in the Middle East. After all, I imagine the Iranians - government and public - becoming rather alarmed at a world superpower with a declared animosity suddenly occupying their neighbour, while I wouldn't be surprised at any American government finding something to annoy them about Iran's conduct, especially if the US decides it needs a new war for whatever reason.

Originally posted by hallelujajordan
I don't know if you listened to Robert Fisk on The Last Word last night but he drew the very obvious and very legitimate parallel between North Korea and Iraq . . . He pointed to the US's determination to invade a country (with massive loss of life) who at the moment present no threat to the rest of the world (or indeed the region itself) and have no intention (and never will have) of invading North Korea (an invasion that you could argue as being far more justified).

I keep hearing this argument, and I can't help thinking it's somewhat beside the point. Would Robert Fisk be fine with an Iraq war if the US was also planning on jumping on North Korea? Is consistency really the most important criterion for judging foreign policy? US hypocrisy in itself is not a good enough reason for opposing an invasion, although you could argue that it's the double standards the US displays that infuriate so many people in the Middle East.

Originally posted by bokey
Yes, the oil in Iraq would be of great use to the West, but if its all about the oil...and getting one back for daddy then maybe someone could explain why the US chose not to depose Saddam a decade ago? Was it not all about the oil then? They had him for the asking, and the US has shown time and time again (both then and now) that it will act in defiance of the UN when it feels it necessary.

Well a decade ago the US President was Bill Clinton, so that might have had something to do with it. He didn't stuff his administration with quite so many oil industry veterans, for one thing. As for why Bush Senior didn't go on to Baghdad in the first Gulf War back in '91, I don't quite know. The military (including Colin Powell) were against it, as far as I know.

bonkey

Originally posted by hallelujajordan
What I meant is, as you have pointed out in your post, the US have not and will never have any intention of invading North Korea.

They cannot invade North Korea - not at the moment. Look at the proximity to Seoul - forget the Iraq/Israel proximity....there is simply no way the US could prevent N.Korea destroying Seoul as soon as a war broke out. They can, however, offer Israel some degree of protection.

Secondly, as I already mentioned, China would quite probably come to the defense of North Korea. There is absolutely no way the US want that to happen.

Ask yourself why the US didnt go into Iraq a decade ago. The main reason is that the surrounding arab nations would not have tolerated it and said as much, and the US could not afford to have the entire ME region turning against them.

AS a result, the US has spent the last decade villifying the Iraqis, and the advent of 9/11 gave them the perfect excuse to further drive a "with us or against us" wedge in there.

They have spent 10 years making sure that Iraq's support has dwindled, and have capitalised on every event possible to further that aim (ostracisation of Iraq). Now that they have done this, they are finally in a position to "finish the job".

Now, note Axis of Evil speech, where the US really started making noises about North Korea. Dubya had mentioned them before, but this was the start of the anti-North-Korea campaign. If the US administration is serious about wanting to "resolve" the North Korean problem, then expect to see about another decade or two of villification, with the aim of isolating.

Just like Muckrosoft have their "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" philosophy, the US appear to have a similar philosophy which works along the the lines of "identify, isolate, invade". North Korea is only still between phase one and two of this.

The parallel I draw between NK and Iraq is based on George Bush's priciple reasoning for attacking Iraq. That is, to rid the world of an evil dictator, who has been engaging on a program of WMD research, and who is prepared to use these.

Look - the US can take Iraq. They cannot take North Korea. Even if they could, the damage to their relationship with South Korea would be nigh-on irreperable, and they could kiss goodbye to any trading inroads they've made in China. It would be a case where winning the war would still be losing.

Even if Bush is being honest and it is about the dictators, WMDs, lack of freedom, blah blah blah, then he still would be correct to go after Iraq instead of North Korea.

so why is there not equal reason for the Americans to invade North Korea.

Because the NK have nukes, and the launch systems to put them into Seoul city with a flight-time of about 30 seconds (IIRC). The US do not have the capability to defend Seoul against this, or against a similar but conventional missile attack.

Because the NK has a small nation called China supporting their independence, who has openly stated that it would oppose any US military action in the region.

Look, the question we all have to ask ourselves is if we examine what is known about both NK and IRAQ, in an unbiased observant way who do we conclude represents the greatest threat to world peace. If we conclude that NK is a bigger threat then there must be another reason for the US/UK determination to invade Iraq. . . . If that reason is not oil, then I challenge you to explain to me what it is?

I have explained it to you. Let me say it one more time to see if you can understand what I am saying :

America cannot invade North Korea. The risks are simply too high - both in terms of South Korea and in terms of Chinese intervention.

America can invade Iraq. It has spent a decade isolating them to ensure that it can invade Iraq with relatively low risk.

There are good reasons to deal with both nations, however the stability of the Middle East is of far more importance. America would be only too happy to watch all those east-Asian Communist nations fall into turmoil, destroy their economies, etc. because that will ultimately bring down the regime. However, they need stability in the ME.

Its a no-brainer. Pick the fight which is easiest to win, and which offers the most advantages. That would be Iraq.

The US are only interested in protecting their own interests of which, in the middle east they have many. . . .

Thank you. This is what I have been saying from the start. It is not "all about Iraqi oil". America has - as you say - a lot of interests in the region, and they are protecting all of them.

Finally, I've got to say I think it's just laughable that you attribute any anti-western feelings in the Middle-East to Saddam Hussein and Iraq

You think its laughable to claim that a nation which has been semi-subjugated by western powers could engender any hostility towards its subjugators amongst those of a similar ideology.

Exactly how is this laughable?

Hussein has spent the last decade attempting to protray himself as the unfortunate victim of western interference, and has made sure that such interference has remained highly visible. Despite his relative lack of religiousness, he is one of the first to cry out about the west being anti-islam (and offering this as another reason for them picking on him).

He and others can (and do) play on the continued presence and interference and can basically whip up some good ol' resentment there.

This is another reason why the US need to take out Iraq. They know that their no-fly zones, embargos, etc are all being used to whip up anti-American sentiment in the ME.

And you think this isnt happening? That such a suggestion is laughable? Note that I have never claimed this is the only source of anti-Americansim, nor that replacing Saddam will get rid of the problem. However, I do claim that he is a significant factor, and that removing him will remove one of the major sources of anti-Americanism.

You can validly say that this is all actually the US' fault (consequences of their own actions in the past) rather than Saddam's, but thats not the point. The point is that the US are not interested in changing themselves to rectify the problem. (After all - they're the free, democratic good guys. How could they be part of the problem?). Yet the problem must be rectified. Conclusion - go sort out the other guy.

The US could to far more to address this growing anti-westernism by putting in place a program that will allow the weapons inspectors to get their job done while at the same time, relaxing the sanctions on Iraq and allowing them to participate in world economics. At the same time he could knuckle down and address the Israeli question in the same way that Bill Clinton tried (and almost succeeded) to do !!!

I have never argued that the course the US is taking is the best one. I'm not discussing what they should be doing, how they should be doing it, etc. nor am I particularly interested in getting into that endless debate yet again. What I am discussing is what they are doing, and why I believe they are doing it. Its a completely seperate issue.

jc

Typedef

The impending Iraqi war is a servile thing.

The American economy was close to recession and is still pretty weak at the moment. Arguably a contributary factor to this economic slide was that investors got spooked when it became clear that George Bush and his pro-war interest group cronies would be occupying the White House for four years.

So, a good war was just what the interest groups ordered. Billions will be spent on war in the Bush Administration, keeping interest groups like Lockheed-Martin and the like plump with defence contracts in the post cold war environment.

Iraqi oil is a big factor, but, the US occpying Iraq with made up justifications, bending the UN to it's neo-imperialst agenda is perhaps the biggest coup going on here.

The sheer arrogance of the move is staggering, not least of which is the fact that the USA helped the Iraqi's use Chemical weapons against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.

See in years gone by, it was the case that Imperialist countries were pointed to and derided for what they were, but the US propaganda machine, has since the cold war convinced the world, that it is in fact the USA who is endowed with the divine right to reshape the world and is the only nation capable of doing so.

However the USA simply making it's own justification to invade and intercede in the affairs of soverign nations has eventually come back to bite the US in it's proverbial ass. There has been a 'terrorist' attack against the US on US soil, against US civilians, from an external power, for the fist time since Pearl Harbour.

Alas for the morons who speak of pan-spectrum US hegemony, 'terrorism' has no capital city to occupy and no border to invade and the more the US acts in such a blatantly and obvious extraneous manner with impunity and abandon for the opinions of the international community, the more likely it will be that the US and it's citizens will come under 'terrorist' attack.

Cause and effect is that, as much as George Bush may claim that terrorists hate the US "because of our freedom", the fact is 'terrorists' hate the US, because it does things like play with the lives of millions of people in the Middle East, for it's own petty 'interests'.

swiss

I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Typedef (mostly). For years, Saddam Hussain has had relatively uninterrupted reign of brutal oppression of minorities in Iraq, with little more than lip service being paid from western powers to the plight of ordinary kurds and other minorities. For years the sanctions imposed upon Iraq has both increased the sufferings of ordinary Iraqi citizens and allowed Saddam an even tighter reign on it's populace, mostly through propoganda and national unity in the face of a perceived external threat (UN/US sanctions).

Now, however, all of a sudden, the US (and hence, it's strategic allies) are suddenly concerned about the weapons of mass destruction which it purports are in the hands of a despotic maniac who can and will use these to furthur his own ends. It has already been argued (convincingly IMHO) that the use of these weapons would be tantamount to suicide by the Iraqi leader. As Saddam has frequently demonstrated in his continuing survival, both political and physical, he is clever enough to realise when to fight and when not to fight (and survive).

The US is faced with a tricky situation. Since 9/11 it has rallied most of it's citizens and much of the global community to it's quest for revenge against "the terrorist threat", little realising that responding with brute force against civillian targets is exactly what caused the US to become such a target in the first place. Now however, it has to reconcile the apparantly mutually exclusive goals of disarming terrorists, and dealing with "rogue" nations who hitertofore have remained relatively quiet.

Hence, it appears likely that they will attempt to execute a plan similar to that espoused above in the article quoted. A "benevolent dictatorship" will be installed, as a precursor to a democratic solution. However, this in itself has it's inherent dangers. The first is the perceived "vested interest" which the United States holds in the ME, most particularly in relation to the substantial oil reserves which Iraq hold. Should the US invade Iraq, ostensibly for "humanitarian" reasons and to disarm Saddam of all weapons of mass destruction, and then extract a form of payment in the form of crude oil reserves, then the moral high ground of this invasion would be as hollow and hypocritical as it is perceived by many ME citizens.

Secondly, the whole issue of "democratising" a country is often far more complex than is initially assumed. Firstly, as bonkey pointed out, not all democratic decisions are welcomed by the global community (as seen in Austria). This is a form of external co-ersion on the results of an election, which runs counter to the very principal of democracy. Given strong anti - US sentiment in Iraq, I would find it unlikely that a more amenable government (amenable to the US) would be found should the natural result of an election follow the deposal of Saddam. Perhaps the government would be without weapons of mass destruction, but with grievances in the area fresh and unresolved, it would give terrorists even more reason to strike at the US, hence propitiating another cycle of violence in the region.

All of this leaves the argument "what is the best means of proceeding?". I believe that firstly the US should acknowledge that decades of crippling sanctions against Iraq has chiefly affected the Iraqi people and not it's leadership, and hence try to win the propaganda war on the ground. Let the weapons inspectors do their job, and hence give at least the illusion that they are willing to allow Iraq the opportunity to lay his weapons program open for inspection. Once the weapons inspectors, and hence the UN, are satisfied that Iraq has breached it's security resolution, then, and only then may confrontation become an option. The problems outlined above would still apply to this situation, however the US may at least in this instance deign to maintain the moral high ground it purports to possess.

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by bonkey


I have never argued that the course the US is taking is the best one. I'm not discussing what they should be doing, how they should be doing it, etc. nor am I particularly interested in getting into that endless debate yet again. What I am discussing is what they are doing, and why I believe they are doing it. Its a completely seperate issue.

jc

Bonkey,

I'm finally understanding you. You're whole argument is based around accepting the American position and understanding why they behave as they do. It's easy to understand why a man like george Bush, who has been responsible for more executions of US citizens than any other man in recent times, would be of a mind to launch a ground assault in Iraq. It's easy to understand why Tony Blair would hold his coat-tails while he does it.

The pertinent question is whether or not these actions are morally correct, or internationally justifiable. When this war is over we will look at the Middle East . . . . more than 1/2 a million people will likely be killed (each one of them as important a life as you, me or George Bush) and the region will be in the same sorry state as ever.

It is laughable to blame Saddam Hussein for anti-americanism in the middle east. The treatment of the palestinians is abhorrent, and it is supported by America . . . More than 1/2 a million Iraqi children have died in the past 10 years as a result of international sanctions, enforced because of an American foreign policy that does not want to see Iraq recover. When this is all over and many more people die, how many will turn to the likes of Al Queda to further their fight, and where will the next turn take us.

I've grown up in Ireland in the 70's and 80's and learnt that violence begets violence begets violence . . . .

Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.” If we continue to do nothing, evil will destroy our world, and by evil I look to the likes of Saddam Hussein but I see the likes of George Bush over his shoulder . . .

I have explained it to you. Let me say it one more time to see if you can understand what I am saying :

One more thing, you threatened to ban because I suggested that you had your head up your ass . . . . and then you address me like this. Every time I enter into a debate with you, within one or two posts you turn to condescension and quite frankly, I find that far more offensive than my comment to you. You make this board intimidating for new posters and I think as a mod (and particularly as the author of the rules for this board) we new posters should expect better. There is no need to ram your views down peoples neck with such a condescending attitude. So maybe you can take your head back out of your ass and start following your own rules (and you can ban me for that if you like).

Victor

Originally posted by shotamoose
Well a decade ago the US President was Bill Clinton, so that might have had something to do with it. He didn't stuff his administration with quite so many oil industry veterans, for one thing. As for why Bush Senior didn't go on to Baghdad in the first Gulf War back in '91, I don't quite know. The military (including Colin Powell) were against it, as far as I know.

Quite simple, they didn't want to bear the burden of occupation and reparations to other countries (as the occupying power).

Originally posted by bonkey
Because the NK have nukes, and the launch systems to put them into Seoul city with a flight-time of about 30 seconds (IIRC). The US do not have the capability to defend Seoul against this, or against a similar but conventional missile attack.

I don’t think they actually have nuclear weapons – they just have a program that means they could build weapons in the next few years. However, they can rain 500,000 artillery shells on Seoul in the first three hours of any war.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html