posted on October 11, 2002 12:58:54 PM new
In a Times' article the first plans for post-terrorist Iraq are unveiled. Acknowledging the mistakes with Afghanistan, this plan wisely lays out a blueprint that excludes the locals and other selfish political special interest groups, such as those Iraqis in exile, from mucking up the "resourceful" rebuilding. The occupation will last until the Iraqis are sufficiently civilized enough to manage their own oil reserves or the supply is depleted, whichever comes first.
"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.
"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."
posted on October 11, 2002 01:07:01 PM new
Installing a military governor?
Bad news, that!
Because it means that American troops will have to stay. As Targets.
Iraqis will throw stones and American troops will open-fire at them. Each event cycle of violence only strengthens the resolve of our new enemies. Eventually, in a decade or so of colonialist occupation of Iraq, Americans will have had enough body bags filled and will demand that we leave with our tails tucked firmly between our legs. Haven't we been though this once before?
posted on October 11, 2002 01:39:26 PM new"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.
It's going to be worse than I thought. How long are the governments of the other Arab nations going to stand by for a prolongedoccupation, not to mention Islamic fundamentalists?
How long before we see the draft instituted?
And I smell a bribe to "coalition partners".
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on October 11, 2002 05:08:38 PM new
This sickens me. Here we are, declaring war on a country that hasn't declared war on us and we're already predicting victory and planning a long military occupation and military rule. Seems to me those jugheads in Washington ought to thoroughly study WWII-era Japan -- beginning with their attack on us and their certainty of winning.
My America doesn't invent panic in order to justify taking over whole countries. This is insanity. Bush, Rummy, Cheney, Ashcroft, and all their oil cronies imperil my America, both from within and without. No wonder China and Korea are racing along with their own nuclear programs; our "leaders" are sending the message that America will steamroll over the whole world, no matter what the world says about it. I'd be terrified if I lived elsewhere; sh!t, I'm now terrified living here.
You folks who think it's so great to go in and overthrow Hussein and take over Iraq, you think about what this will lead to five years from now, ten years from now. We're getting into something your toddlers of today are going to be dealing with on the front lines when they grow up. Be too late to kick yourselves then for letting a few madmen (yes, Bush & Co. are madmen) subvert the very freedom they've so cunningly assured you they mean to save. If that's your America, you can have it; it isn't worth preserving.
Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Hilary Clinton, and Tom Daschle can go to hell, too. Nothing but a bunch of f*cking hacks, the lot of them.
If you want to know what I REALLY think, press one...
posted on October 11, 2002 05:44:01 PM new
The Bush administration is contemplating a lengthy postwar occupation of Iraq, in which a senior US general would become de facto governor of the country, oversee the dismantling of weapons of mass destruction and retain US control over Iraq’s most prized natural resource, its oil fields.
So that when Bush leaves office he and his corporate buddies will be billionaires.
The good Senators who voted aganist this maddness.
posted on October 11, 2002 06:15:03 PM new
I don't know, Borillar, to what extent Iraq will resemble Viet Nam. Somewhat certainly. Afghanistan does. But our positioning will be different, especially technologically. I would think that Iraq would be an almost ideal situation to experiment with the technologies of mass control, or security, if you will. And then Viet Nam had little to offer in terms of immediate economic reward and reality TV/media was still in its infancy. All of those differences will factor into the equasion.
I agree, snowy, that drafting will likely be reactivated, especially for a military occupation. I rather think that the administration doesn't really want much of a coalition though, beyond Britain, unless it's absolutely unavoidable.
posted on October 11, 2002 06:51:20 PM new
Vietnam was a political war and is the reason that military missions are undertaken by the military now. Iraq would be a cake-walk if it becomes necessary. And the theory proposed by the left that it will become a guerilla-war type of a bog is ludicrous, just clutching at straws. Nobody is going to mount a campaign to restore Hussein.
More than likely the attack will never come. In the event it does I'll wager the scenario will be something like:
Saddam gets toppled.
We set up a UN administration of Iraq where the oil revenue is used to reinburse our operational costs and fund the new Iraqi economy.
The military presence will remain for several years and deter terrorism rather than invoke it. I'm sure with a major force there countries like Iran and Saudi would think of other places to funnel billions other than supplying terrorists.
posted on October 11, 2002 07:00:38 PM newWe set up a UN administration of Iraq where the oil revenue is used to reinburse our operational costs and fund the new Iraqi economy.
posted on October 11, 2002 09:01:14 PM new
Echoing that laugh myself, Antiquary.
No one doubts, DeSquirrel, that usurping Iraq will be a cakewalk. Expand your mind into the next decade (if you can) and contemplate the ramifications -- throughout the world -- of our doing so.
posted on October 11, 2002 09:15:36 PM new
Sitting in the staff room at work yesterday, someone began grousing over a newspaper article on Kuwait. "Look at all we've done for them," she snorted. "We protected them...we saved them--and now they refuse to help us. What's wrong with them?" I told her that all the rumblings over here about how we should just go in willy nilly & take control of Iraq's oilfields just might have something to do with it. After all, the likelihood that Bush is going to stop at Iraq's oil fields is pretty low...and as a Muslim country they probably feel even less secure... Life is hard. And then you die
posted on October 11, 2002 09:42:51 PM new
The rich ME oil reserves are being treated today much like the subject of sex was in Victorian times. Everyone knew that it existed, and some suspected that indulgence might exceed the obligations of duty, but its existence could never be acknowledged in polite society.
Well, it is self-serving, Pat. I've been thinking of that comparison for a while as I read and hear the most tortured logic I've ever witnessed in what passes as public debate. I've also thought often of the governor's song and dance, The Sidestep, in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas as the Iraqi War Party dances all around the "oil question."
So this seemed like a good time to work it in, and I do think that it fits.
posted on October 12, 2002 12:00:45 AM new
Certainly, the War and the toppling of Saddam is a bit predictable. But the occupation takes some fine thinking. No one can know for sure, but the Iraqi people have no love for us, even if we throw off Saddam. In fact, it is likely to rally the entire Arab world against us, and in doing so, some of our allies will desert us as well for having gone unilateral. The Iraqi people will see us as foreign aggressors who invade their country and try to take it over culturally by forcing Westernism on them. That so long as we are there, we will be seen as colonial occupiers with delusions of Empire. Just like Hitler ignored the lesson learned by Napoleon, Bush is ignoring the lesson learned by the British. Face-it: we just aren't welcome over there. If, instead, we backed some Iraqi opposition and allowed Muslims to topple Saddam instead of us, then we'd be sailing right along. With a pro-Western government in place, we could offer the Iraqis aid and help to rebuild their country. Not that they'd love us afterwards, but it would be a damned sight better than us getting bogged down over there. Unfortunately, we blew that opportunity three (3) times in the past. Three times we backed a force that went to topple Saddam and at the last second, the USA withdrew its support and thousands were killed. Since we did this to each of the three powers in Iraq, there is no one left that could challenge Saddam. We screwed ourselves by betraying the Iraqi people. No, they have long memories and no love for us whatsoever! Stupidity to go do this.
posted on October 12, 2002 03:28:51 PM new
Yes, it is stupid to go into Iraq, even with the most favorable possible scenario that I can envision. Unlike Viet Nam though we can win the war; it's the occupation that creates the greater difficulty. The greatest risk is that our attack on Iraq will set off a chain reaction in the ME or beyond and lead to a third world war. I think that that is initially unlikely unless Israel becomes involved or there is another fairly powerful nation such as Russia or China working behind the scenes with that end in mind. Neither wants further U. S. encroachment in the ME and the overt imperialism will make them uneasy, but both are presently more devoted to economic than idealogical priorities.
An occupation force would require a military dictatorship, exactly like Saddam's, only benevolent, and a large standing army to control the 3 major groups that would like to control the country. Our creation and enforcement of order would be no different than Saddam's except that it would operate in what we call a more civilized manner to maintain a functional sort of internal order, and its end goal would be to forge an harmonious alliance among the factions that would result in a democratic pro-Western state. No one knows how that could ever be accomplished of course and it's never worked in similar situations in the past, which is why we always end by placing one faction in power that we believe will support us and promise to support them, but it often doesn't mean much and because there were no real solutions to the problems, they resurface a little later, often with greater intensity. So if this is a real goal of an occupation, it's almost certain to fail, and the government is aware of that but it does sell well with the analytically-challenged segment of our society.
That Iraq presents any more of a threat to us than half the world does is just silly and that that threat is immediate and direct is ludicrous. If the government had such proof it would be presented to us and the world quickly and clearly, there would be almost universal world support as there was with Afghanistan, and Saddam would be quickly toppled. The strategy has been to attempt to goad Saddam into an action or position that would justify an attack. If that could be accomplished it might sway world opinion, but so far it hasn't worked. But the question arises of why a military occupancy, especially one that would likely continue for years, is necessary to find and confiscate or destroy the WOMDs, whatever is there in the way of biological or chemical weapons and excluding the nuclear ones that we will likely bring there. I envision hundreds of thousands of inspectors with sieves out sifting through the sands. It would certainly boost the world unemployment problem and Iraq would be paying the salaries. But this goal plays especially well with that segment of the society that loves government sponsored, politically correct conspiracy theories and have become addicted to contemporary fiction.
This leaves us with the problem of what to do with the oil. Alas, we are forced to have to deal with it since controlling its development is necessary to pay our expenses in destroying and then rebuilding Iraq. Especially if there is a limited profit-taking and American companies receive the majority of contracts. A certain number of Iraqis could be usefully employed. There would likely be the daily violence and American deaths from terrorists but as long as the media played its role and there were a long string of relatively minor dramas, it would play well enough to the soap/opera reality audience at home, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflicts will make such a situation more natural and acceptable for the home audience. With sufficient continual government spin the deaths will be viewed as heroic and necessary to our humanitarian efforts there. With the use of sufficient surveillance technology and rigid laws, most uprising could be prevented or quickly squelched. Sort of an advanced version of the "reforms" that have been necessary here in the U. S. to ensure our enduring freedom. The media will picture those Iraqis who have converted to American high culture wolfing down Big Macs while watching CNN and simultaneous leafing through a copy of Martha Stewart Living with a somewhat vague but pleasant expression. The rebels, terrorists actually, will be shown being deservedly gunned down as the evil barbarous animals that they are.
That's pretty much the game plan, I think, with only a slightly different spin to it than our current, and perhaps perpetual, government would place on it. Will the American public buy it? I don't know. I would hope not, but so far, they've allowed policy to move in that direction. I think that a majority of Americans mainly don't want to make a decision or take a stand on issues. As long as the government can wield the fear factor and convince the people that they really don't have a choice then a majority of people are content with that default position since they won't feel responsible for what happens.
posted on October 12, 2002 08:33:17 PM new
Hey, Robin. I'm been out working on my son's old house for a while. I think that his teenage years were a precursor to American foreign policy.
posted on October 12, 2002 09:12:27 PM new
I predict that the American People will be stupid enough sheep to re-elect Bush in 2004. Within six months after his re-election in 2004, he will go full-on Dictatorship - a complete tyrant. He is trying to immitate a modren version of Adolph Hitler right now, but does not want to ruin his chances to get re-elected and to loose all that he has gathered to himself. In 2004, look back at 2000 when he was seen as the Peacemaker - someone who promised us continual Peace during his election campaign. What worked once will work again -- people are just that stupid. Fool me one - shame on you! Fool me twice - shame on me! Fool me each and every time - call me a Republican Voter!
posted on October 13, 2002 09:22:01 PM new
Well, yeah, totalitarianism seems inevitable at this point. In testing how much fear is necessary to make people today willing to give up freedom, the answer is not much. So the crises will continue.
None of the words or institutions can be changed much; that's essential. For instance, the word dictator could never be used, but the term limits on the presidency could be removed, just as the limits to the power of the presidency can be during an "emergency." So a president could remain in power throughout his lifetime, gradually acquiring almost unlimited power, and the people will believe that nothing of much importance has really changed. So, it's doable and probably not very difficult. Right now I can't see anything or anyone that would alter the course we're on.
On July 27, 2001, Nobody took George seriously when he said, "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." Now, as Borillar has suggested, only a fool would overlook that possibility.
posted on October 14, 2002 11:26:09 AM new
As much of a power-hungry monster as Bush has been, he's been holding back so that he can get re-elected. Think about it.
posted on October 14, 2002 09:07:03 PM new
Bush has guts and balls to acknowledge that we don't have to wait for IRAQ to declare war on us. They already tried to INVADE Kuwait, Sadam violated all his terms of war treaty with the US and he is busy building weapons to wipe us out. Gee, he already tried to take over a country. Gee, lets see, he kills his own people, you can't disagree with him if you live in IRAQ... there is no freedom of speech and Al queda operatives have been meeting in his country..I wonder what they could be doing in IRAQ? maybe working on wiping out AMERICANS? Oh no not SADAM hes such a nice guy! were just picking on him, bad Americans!
