the government will consist of 23 ministries, each headed by an American

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,927055,00.html

US draws up secret plan to impose regime on Iraq

Brian Whitaker and Luke Harding in Sulaimaniya
Tuesday April 1, 2003
The Guardian

A disagreement has broken out at a senior level within the Bush administration over a new government that the US is secretly planning in Kuwait to rule Iraq in the immediate aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Under the plan, the government will consist of 23 ministries, each headed by an American. Every ministry will also have four Iraqi advisers appointed by the Americans, the Guardian has learned.

The government will take over Iraq city by city. Areas declared "liberated" by General Tommy Franks will be transferred to the temporary government under the overall control of Jay Garner, the former US general appointed to head a military occupation of Iraq.

In anticipation of the Baghdad regime's fall, members of this interim government have begun arriving in Kuwait.

Decisions on the government's composition appear to be entirely in US hands, particularly those of Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defence. This has annoyed Gen Garner, who is officially in charge but who, according to sources close to the planning of the government has had to accept a number of controversial Iraqis in advisory roles.

The most controversial of Mr Wolfowitz's proposed appointees is Ahmed Chalabi, the head of the opposition Iraqi National Congress, together with his close associates, including his nephew. During his years in exile, Mr Chalabi has cultivated links with Congress to raise funds, and has become the Pentagon's darling among the Iraqi opposition. The defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, is one of his strongest supporters. The state department and the CIA, on the other hand, regard him with deep suspicion.

He has not lived in Iraq since 1956, apart from a short period organising resistance in the Kurdish north in the 1990s, and is thought to have little support in the country.

Mr Chalabi had envisaged becoming prime minister in an interim government, and is disappointed that no such post is included in the US plan. Instead, the former banker will be offered an advisory job at the finance ministry.

A senior INC official said last night that Mr Chalabi would not countenance a purely advisory position. The official added: "It is certainly not the INC's intention to advise any US ministers in Iraq. Our position is that no Americans should run Iraqi ministries. The US is talking about an interim Iraqi authority taking over, but we are calling for a provisional government."

The revelation about direct rule is likely to cause intense political discomfort for Tony Blair, who has been pressing for UN and international involvement in Iraq's reconstruction to overcome opposition in Britain as well as heal divisions across Europe.

The Foreign Office said last night that a "relatively fluid" number of British officials had been seconded to the planning team.

Last week Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, told Congress that immediately after the fall of President Saddam's regime, the US military would take control of the Iraqi government.

His only concession was that this would be done with the "full understanding" of the international community and with "the UN presence in the form of a special coordinator".
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
The Guardian kind of reminds me of the NY Post...just how accurate is it?

like with every news source it depends on who you ask ;)
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
US draws up secret plan to impose regime on Iraq ........

Looks like the "secret" is out..............
rolleye.gif
 

StormRider

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2000
8,324
2
0
I'm so against us taking over the government of Iraq after the war is over. All it will do is to support the fear among Arabs that we want to take over that region of the world. I fear that we will become the next Israel and be known and hated as occupiers. I would much prefer the UN having this role during the rebuilding of Iraq.

We should also stay out of the rich oil contracts for awhile -- let other countries like France and Russia have them. We need to avoid the impression that we started this war just for the oil. Our brave men and women soldiers made the ultimate sacrefice for this war. I'm willing to make sacrefices in my near term financial comfort for the peace that hopefully will follow.
 

BlvdKing

Golden Member
Jun 7, 2000
1,173
0
0
And let just anyone take over during the power vacuum? That is just plain stupid.
 

StormRider

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2000
8,324
2
0
Originally posted by: BlvdKing
And let just anyone take over during the power vacuum? That is just plain stupid.

No, I think we should be there to stabilize the situation and then let the UN take over as soon as possible. The longer we are ruling there, the more anger and hatred from the Arab world.
 

exp

Platinum Member
May 9, 2001
2,150
0
0
Hmm...I'll wait for confirmation of this "secret" plan before getting my panties in a wad.

*If* true then I definitely think this course of action would be a monumental mistake, reinforcing world opinion that America is seeking to occupy Iraq. I don't think that is the intention behind this plan but the fact remains that from a PR perspective it looks quite bad, especially to the most important target audience--the Iraqi people.

I have never doubted the U.S. military's ability to win the war, but I do have serious questions about the Bush administration's ability to win the ensuing peace. Hopefully they will prove me wrong...

 

Michael

Elite member
Nov 19, 1999
5,435
234
106
I'll assume that the report is correct.

If so, it sounds like a good plan to me. The USA did exactly the same thing in Germany and Japan after WW II. What else are they supposed to do?

1) Just leave? - that was done in 1991 and lead to Kurds and Shiites being slaughtered

2) Let the UN come in and run things? - The US can't do this with ther ecent record of the UN

The question is not who will run the country right after the war is done, but how long will it last and what and when are the plans to give the country back to the Iraqi people.

Michael
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
How the hell does the Gueardian get ahold of a "secret" plan anyways?

Sometimes I think the media is just as much to blame for these problems as the governments themselves.
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
The UN is useless. We have already proven that. They told us not to attack, we did it anyways. Are they stopping us? No.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Michael
I'll assume that the report is correct.

If so, it sounds like a good plan to me. The USA did exactly the same thing in Germany and Japan after WW II. What else are they supposed to do?

1) Just leave? - that was done in 1991 and lead to Kurds and Shiites being slaughtered

2) Let the UN come in and run things? - The US can't do this with ther ecent record of the UN

The question is not who will run the country right after the war is done, but how long will it last and what and when are the plans to give the country back to the Iraqi people.

Michael

a voice of reason in the sea of ignorance...
 

StormRider

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2000
8,324
2
0
I think it would be a good plan only if the Iraqi people want this. I'm hoping that as soon as Saddam's henchmen fade away that the Iraqi people will feel more free to express what they truly feel. I'm hoping that they really will feel that we are their liberators.

However, if they feel that we are the occupiers, then I think it's better to let the UN handle their temporary governing.
 

Phuz

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2000
4,349
0
0
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
The UN is useless. We have already proven that. They told us not to attack, we did it anyways. Are they stopping us? No.

Oh. My.
 

Ilmater

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2002
7,516
1
0
I can't find the link any more, but I read that the leaders of the different factions in Iraq (Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites, etc.) all signed a treaty to work together after the war to form a democratic government and maintain the current boundaries.

Also, the Guardian is biased no matter WHO you talk to. If people can't see bias, they're blind or they're in utter agreement. Consider this from March 26:

"Most military experts are saying the campaign in Iraq is an unprecedented success. The war is now six days old. The USA has losses of 20 dead and 14 captured or missing according to the Associated Press. The allies control most of the country and are knocking on the door of Saddam's bunker. But if you read The New York Times today, you might think Iraq was winning. The front page of the "Times" was full of ominous headlines. "Iraqis Repel Copters; One Goes Down." "GIs Regroup After Setback --Two Prisoners on Iraqi TV." "Hussein Rallies Iraqi Defenders." "The Goal Is Baghdad, but at What Cost?" All these headlines were on just one page.

Contrast that to page one of the The Boston Globe, also a very liberal newspaper. "Coalition nearing Baghdad." "War plan on course." "Hunt for banned weapons." "Strategy aims at heart of Hussein's rule." Quite a difference. The Globe giving straight and honest war coverage."

So czar, I disagree with you. I don't think it matters who you talk to. I'm not concerned with what they report because they'd believe anything that was told to them by even the most unreputable sources on the planet.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
The UN is useless. We have already proven that. They told us not to attack, we did it anyways. Are they stopping us? No.

Oh yeah, that makes them useless.

rolleye.gif
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,709
8
81
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
The UN is useless. We have already proven that. They told us not to attack, we did it anyways. Are they stopping us? No.

Oh yeah, that makes them useless.

rolleye.gif


WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,



AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

Yeah I'd say they failed!
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
The UN is useless. We have already proven that. They told us not to attack, we did it anyways. Are they stopping us? No.

Oh yeah, that makes them useless.

rolleye.gif


WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,



AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

Yeah I'd say they failed!

Yeah? I'd say Bush failed.

 

RyanM

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2001
2,387
0
76
Serbia. Cambodia. Iraq. Yeah, I'd say the UN failed f*cking miserably. Utterly useless.
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,425
2
0
Originally posted by: CPA
How the hell does the Gueardian get ahold of a "secret" plan anyways?
Didn't you know? Some of their readers assist them by doing investigative work on the internet and revealing these guarded secrets. This makes them privy to all sorts of useful and secret information. One of their readers was able to ascertain that the civilians who died in the marketplace we're definately struck by a US bomb. Imagine that! You can find anything on the internet and, as everyone knows, if its on the internet it has to be true.

 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
It seems to me that some of the prime candidates selected by Wolfie were convicted of fraud or embezzlement in Jordan a few years ago. Someone correct me on this if I am wrong. Nothing like putting criminals in charge. Wouldnt be the first time though.