The government's solution for ruling Iraq? Let the military do it.

February 13, 2003 8:16 PM

The government's solution for ruling Iraq? Let the military do it. Looks like Iraq will be under the military rule of General Tommy Franks for at least two years. (This explains how members of the administration can threaten to cut other countries out of Iraqi oil deals in a future Iraq.) But how will the rest of the Islamic world react to a prolonged US military occupation of in excess of 50,000 troops, where the US would have to feed, supply, and rebuild an entire country?
posted by insomnia_lj (46 comments total)

*beats head against wall*
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:22 PM on February 13, 2003

Would you have preferred I talked about the weather?

It's amazing how that rain storm came in after all that sun... and I hear the sun is coming back tomorrow. Next week, they predict its going to be rainy again, with a 50% chance of cruise missiles!
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:29 PM on February 13, 2003

*switches intercom on*

"Ladies and gentlemen this is your captain speaking, If there is an Iraq aboard, would you please press your 'call' button and identify yourself to a flight attendant. Thank you"
posted by hama7 at 8:29 PM on February 13, 2003

We can't even feed our own country, and now we're going to feed an entire other one? Something seriously wrong there. Nah, the administration will probably just take the oil and run.
posted by benjh at 8:36 PM on February 13, 2003

*beats head in time to mr_crash_davis*
posted by anathema at 8:48 PM on February 13, 2003

I will rule Iraq and the new language of Iraq will be Esperanto
posted by RobbieFal at 8:50 PM on February 13, 2003

You know, we do have allies, right? We're not shouldering the whole burden ourselves.

Even if we didn't, though, we won't be paying for it (the long-run rebuilding) at all, actually, because the oil-for-money cash that Saddam has been stealing for his palaces will actually be used to buy food and rebuild the nation, as it was intended, once he's ousted. If you mean we'll take the oil and run it back into rebuilding Iraq, then yeah, you're right.

As far as oil is concerned now, though, I'm sure it's been pointed out too often already that France and Russia, coincidently, are pressing for relaxed sanctions so that French and Russian oil deals with Saddam can be finished. Ironic that.
posted by Kevs at 8:53 PM on February 13, 2003

A good strategy is to always leave at least some armies in the territories you've just taken, because you never know when Iran may trade in their RISK cards and take over the vital Australia continent, giving them two extra armies per turn.
posted by Stan Chin at 8:54 PM on February 13, 2003

usatoday i thought had a nice opinion on why a marshall plan might not work. also here's a couple looks at "post-hussein" planning from the wsj.
posted by kliuless at 8:55 PM on February 13, 2003

You know, we do have allies, right?

don't tell us, tell bush.
posted by mcsweetie at 9:35 PM on February 13, 2003

Sure, I'll go for the baiting.

Of course the military would administer Iraq, who ever thought anything otherwise? Isn't this exactly what anyone would do when deciding who would administer the post invasion nation.

In trying to consider this post, I tried to think of cases where the U.S. had not followed this pattern. Unable to think of any, I tried to think of any nation that had done this, but still no success there.

If this wasn't an issue about force, the military wouldn't even be there in the first place.
posted by rudyfink at 9:51 PM on February 13, 2003

Hmmm...this sort of plan seemed to work OK in the case of Germany and Japan, post WWII. Spectacularly, in fact, and on the whole.
posted by davidmsc at 9:52 PM on February 13, 2003

This article offers one reason why Belgium, France and Germany are so anti-war: the idea of liberating Iraq is humilating.

I am confident that General Franks has the wisdom and intelligence to to what he has to. We should all be very proud of the American military.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:09 PM on February 13, 2003

"Hmmm...this sort of plan seemed to work OK in the case of Germany and Japan, post WWII. Spectacularly, in fact, and on the whole."

If you consider that it took about six years of military government and a huge price tag under the Marshall Plan in countries with a far stronger national identity than Iraq, you're right. Frankly, I doubt the US commitment will last that long or be nearly as effective.

Iraq is a phony country whose identity we cling to in order to maintain the status quo. The Kurds will get screwed to keep the Kurds happy, and the Shi'ite majority will get screwed to keep them from cozying up to Iran, or so the theory goes.

"You know, we do have allies, right? We're not shouldering the whole burden ourselves."

Let's see... we've got Britain (for the next few months that Blair is in power), Italy (do they pay taxes there?), Spain (do they have any income to pay taxes on?), and Australia (they are against the war and still wondering what happened)... and of course, those Eastern European nations that want to worm their way into the European community. Maybe Bulgaria can pay for it all!

Yeah. Our allies will be a big help.

The fact of the matter is that France and Germany account for about half of Europe's economic clout. Reduce England's contribution once they change leaders and you are left with precious little help at all. Meanwhile, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and any other country the US has bought out to support the war will want their money back, Russia is also owed billions by Iraq, and there is *still* the issue of whether Iraq's oil industry and infrastructure will be a smoking pile of slag, or possibly even targets for domestic terrorism.

Sorry. Most of the bill belongs to the US. That's the price of unilateralism.
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:10 PM on February 13, 2003

But how will the rest of the Islamic world react to a prolonged US military occupation of in excess of 50,000 troops

And it's not just the Islamic world that we should be concerned about:

Nations such as China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall. Indeed, if one gives the Chinese credit for having a long-term strategy -- and those who love to quote Sun Tzu might consider his nationality -- it lends credence to their insistent cultivation of the Muslim world. One should not take lightly the fact that China previously supported Libya, that Pakistan developed its nuclear capability with China's unrelenting assistance and that the Chinese sponsored a coup attempt in Indonesia in 1965. An "American war" with the Muslims, occupying the very seat of their civilization, would allow the Chinese to isolate the United States diplomatically as they furthered their own ambitions in South and Southeast Asia.

posted by homunculus at 10:10 PM on February 13, 2003

,i>Sorry. Most of the bill belongs to the US. That's the price of unilateralism.

Well, actually, Iraq has this thing, oil, which will more than pay the bill. So it's really a question of our ability to do it, not pay for it. And, in any case, the weasel nations will become interested once the short war is over. The bigger challenge: remaking the Middle East without the odious influence of France and Germany.

Again, fuck the French and Germans: cynical, selfish, fatalistic, pessimistic, unimaginative bastards.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:38 PM on February 13, 2003

Again, fuck the French and Germans: cynical, selfish, fatalistic, pessimistic, unimaginative bastards

I'm just going to hope that was sarcasm.
posted by lazaruslong at 1:01 AM on February 14, 2003

Ah, so the plan is to pay for this war and subsequent occupation by stealing Iraqi oil? Thanks for clearing that up.

If this was a legitimate operation, the United Nations would sanction it, a US-led UN coalition would carry it out, and a UN peacekeeping force would remain behind. In the current circumstances, this is nothing more than a naked power grab, by a militaristic, expansionist bully. And you have the nerve to criticise the French and the Germans.
posted by salmacis at 1:03 AM on February 14, 2003

thanks for posting this -- I had no idea that the xian sci monitor contained frank, well-written reports.
posted by damehex at 1:37 AM on February 14, 2003

fuck the Republicans and Bush: cynical, selfish, fatalistic, pessimistic, unimaginative bastards
posted by owillis at 1:39 AM on February 14, 2003

Wouldnt we be much better moving 10 units into Kamchatka?
Theres only one unit there.
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:04 AM on February 14, 2003

I am confident that General Franks has the wisdom and intelligence to to what he has to. We should all be very proud of the American military.

That is psychotic and insane.

Nobody even knows who the fuck this Tommy Franks is.

WHO
THE
FUCK
IS
GENERAL
FRANKS?

He's just there. Care to explain how we're so patriotically teary eyed when a new leader is announced to head a new fascist beachhead that says "America" and "democracy" a lot?

What will everyday Iraqis think about this new leader?

Gahhh. What arrogance.
posted by crasspastor at 2:27 AM on February 14, 2003

I am confident that General Franks has the wisdom and intelligence to to what he has to.

Yeah, I'm sure he'll find lots for his family to do as Consul of Iraq.

Funny, isn't that what Saddam does?

Hmmm...this sort of plan seemed to work OK in the case of Germany and Japan, post WWII. Spectacularly, in fact, and on the whole.

Well, it definitely worked spectacularly in the Philippines. And there's a more accurate precedent with that 'plan' than those in either Germany or Japan.
posted by riviera at 6:59 AM on February 14, 2003

A triumph of democracy - miliitary rule.
posted by holycola at 7:11 AM on February 14, 2003

Dammit, these wars for peace are just so confusing.
posted by thewittyname at 7:56 AM on February 14, 2003

Why don't they contract with Bechtel to run it, just like a US Federal "supermax" prison? ........
posted by troutfishing at 8:07 AM on February 14, 2003

or! we could just, um, not take over another country?
posted by mcsweetie at 8:20 AM on February 14, 2003

Didn't the British try this very same thing in the very same place in the last century?

Failed miserably, didn't they?

But then, this short-sighted administration can't be expected to learn anything from history now, can they?

"It would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship and I were the dictator" -Duhbya

I guess we should have seen this one coming upon reflection.

Should I now salute the stars and stripes or the stars and bars? I've never quite settled on that with the Publicans and all their racist friends in charge.
posted by nofundy at 8:37 AM on February 14, 2003

Re: ParisParamus:

Please don't feed the troll, folks.
posted by UKnowForKids at 8:41 AM on February 14, 2003

salmacis: If this was a legitimate operation, the United Nations would sanction it, a US-led UN coalition would carry it out, and a UN peacekeeping force would remain behind.

So you're saying that only the Great Seal of the United Nations can confer legitimacy on any foreign policy, or inter-national operations? If so -- boy, am I glad the U.N. wasn't around on December 8, 1941...we might *still* be waiting for UN approval to strike back at Japan.

And crosspastor: I know who General Tommy Franks is -- and he's a fine choice by me...do you have somebody "better" in mind to help lead Iraq to a better place? Seriously, who would you like to see running Iraq during the transition?
posted by davidmsc at 9:19 AM on February 14, 2003

So you're saying that only the Great Seal of the United Nations can confer legitimacy on any foreign policy, or inter-national operations? If so -- boy, am I glad the U.N. wasn't around on December 8, 1941...we might *still* be waiting for UN approval to strike back at Japan.

Remind me again which attack Iraq launched on the US? The Pentagon or the World Trade Center?
posted by smcniven at 9:41 AM on February 14, 2003

So, does anyone know why it was possible to put together a new government of Afghanis almost immediately, but it will take two years to do so in Iraq? Saddam Hussein's government may be jacked up, but Iraq is nothing like the anarchy that Afghanistan was.
posted by badstone at 10:25 AM on February 14, 2003

The UN Charter specifically authorizes the use of force if it is in self-defense or after an attack. Since that is not the case here, it is against US law to attack Iraq without UN approval, unless it can be proved to be in "self defense" which is a pretty broad term.
posted by cell divide at 10:32 AM on February 14, 2003

badstone, there was still a pretty active opposition in Afghanistan (Northern Alliance) fighting the ruling Taliban. They've formed a large chunk of the current government. Iraq doesn't have the luxury of even a dis-organized opposition. Most of its "leaders" will come from Iraqis who escaped from Saddam's rule decades ago, and don't have a clue what it's like now. Afghanistan imported a number of pre-1980s leaders from western countries... with Iraq, it'll be more like pre-1960s, and that's just asking for trouble.

And the Kevs and others, who are suggesting oil money will go into rebuilding Iraq. Please share whatever it is you're smoking - it sure sounds fun. Rebuild Iraq? Yeah. Just like Afghanistan. I'm sorry, but not a damned thing will be done in Iraq post-war by the current administration. And I'm not holding out much hope for the next few administrations, either. You'll get your oil, and people will starve, and by then the papers will be dealing with something more interesting. Because really, nobody cares to see the repercussions of bone-headed decisions. Especially when the rest of the world kept warning you that's exactly what would happen.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 10:36 AM on February 14, 2003

Iraq doesn't have the luxury of even a dis-organized opposition.

The Iraqi National Congress might beg to differ.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 10:47 AM on February 14, 2003

Saddam Hussein's government may be jacked up, but Iraq is nothing like the anarchy that Afghanistan was

Err, the anarchy that Afghanistan is?

Well, actually, Iraq has this thing, oil, which will more than pay the bill.

Ahh, PP, ever the optimist. The best estimates that I've heard are that it will be about five years of occupation and investment (of U.S. taxpayer dollars) before we see any return on Iraqi oil.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:50 AM on February 14, 2003

do you have somebody "better" in mind to help lead Iraq to a better place
Oh, I don't know. The Iraqi people, maybe?
posted by owillis at 10:53 AM on February 14, 2003

Geez owillis!
There you go again!
Can't you let Cheney do your thinking for you just this once? I'm beginning to think you're a French sympathizer or something already! You ain't been eating cheese and drinking wine, have you?
Turn around, salute the stars and stripes bars, then salute your picture of our unelected, fearless and bold leader and quit being unpatriotic now, you heah now?
posted by nofundy at 11:14 AM on February 14, 2003

The US government is so confident they bought 77,000 body bags. Hmmmm.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:48 PM on February 14, 2003

pseudoephedrine (et al):
Ah, yes. The INC.

From www.meib.org (Middle East Intelligence Bulletin), written by Laurie Mylroie (author of Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America), regarding the INC:

"As the months passed and it became apparent that a coup might well not materialize, the Bush administration began to look more seriously at another option for overthrowing Saddam. The matter was taken up by a number of congressmen, particularly on the House Intelligence Committee, who had come to know Ahmed Chalabi, a wealthy Shi'ite Iraqi businessman, then residing in London. The Congressional intervention with the White House led officials there to meet in late 1991 with Chalabi, the driving force behind what would become the INC."

"The Chalabis were a wealthy Shi'ite family who served as ministers in Iraqi governments under the Hashemite monarchy. When the monarchy was overthrown in 1958, the family left Iraq. Chalabi himself studied at MIT and the University of Chicago, where he received a Ph.D. in mathematics."

It's always nice to see the opposition being led by someone who hasn't been in the country since Eisenhower was President. Wealthy western businessmen are just what's needed to attend to the needs of Iraqis today, just like in the 1950s when they were part of Faisal's oh-so-popular monarchy. Much better than Hussein. Really.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 1:13 PM on February 14, 2003

Can't you let Cheney do your thinking for you just this once? I'm beginning to think you're a French sympathizer or something already! You ain't been eating cheese and drinking wine, have you?


Of course, none of those things were developped by the French in any recent century.

Get Hussein! (Preferably as they're protesting outside the UN tomorrow.)
posted by ParisParamus at 1:26 PM on February 14, 2003

Well, nofundy, he is demonstrating genuine leadership.
posted by owillis at 2:00 PM on February 14, 2003

Will you people freak out or applaud if we find ourselves having to bomb North Korea?
posted by ParisParamus at 2:12 PM on February 14, 2003

If it's in self-defense, no. If it's to add on the new wing of Cheneyville, yes.
posted by owillis at 2:20 PM on February 14, 2003

guys, I think I've discovered the motivation behind parisparamus's oft-echoed "fuck the french" remark! at first I thought he was yet another dittohead but perhaps he has something more carnal in mind...

French women seem to be more successful at pulling off being feminine and yet smart and assertive.

And to generalize, the one thing the French do well is aesthetics, and nowhere is this more true than when it comes to women. The French notion of beauty is more real than its American counterpart, which usually disappoints, and often depresses me. It's the thing that drew me toFrance in the first place, and motivated me to learn French.

Additional angle: She's French, so all the more reason to pile on. [...] I like the way she dressed at that press conference: black clothing, black stockings....GREAT DRESS CODE! If I was going to be brainwashed by a cult, women dressed that way might be able to "pull me in."

truly shocking. since I can't imagine any reasonable person being as desperate for the war as parisparamus, I bet he just likes saying "fuck" and "french" in the same sentence over and over!
posted by mcsweetie at 2:26 PM on February 14, 2003

also just saw some stuff on haddock.
posted by kliuless at 3:27 PM on February 14, 2003