SubscribeRumsfeld has also been encouraging a re-evaluation of the prohibition on targeting civilians, particularly with regard to actions directed at shattering support for the opponent regime. This kind of thinking was popular during the Second World War - as evidenced by the firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg - but was subsequently rejected during the negotiation of the Geneva Conventions. Today, a theory which holds that a regime has 'five strategic rings' is attracting adherents in Washington. According to this view, each ring represents a different facet of a society: its political leadership, economic system, supporting infrastructure, population and military forces. Air power is supposed to enable the United States to target opponents from the 'inside out', to bypass military forces and go directly for the political leadership. In this context, the indirect targeting of civilians - through the destruction of bridges, electrical grids, oil refineries and water-filtration plants - is considered justified because it hastens the course of the conflict (while, incidentally, reducing the cost of victory).This process leads to Iraqi control in a matter of months from the conclusion of hostilities.
The head of the US military's Central Command, Gen. Tommy Franks, will rule Iraq in the initial aftermath of a US invasion to overthrow President Saddam Hussein.
The senators were told that even under good circumstances, it would take two years before the military could fully transfer control to an Iraqi government. As presented, the plan recalls postwar Germany and Japan, where American military occupations paved the way for transfers of power to democratic and constitutionally backed governments.
SULAYMANIYAH, Iraq (CSM) - The head of the U.S. military's Central Command, Gen. Tommy Franks, will rule Iraq in the initial aftermath of a U.S. invasion to overthrow President Saddam Hussein.Some additional information from The Observer:
Administration officials briefed senators Tuesday on postwar planning, stressing that the U.S. goal is "to liberate Iraq, not to occupy it," and last week a U.S. envoy told leaders of Iraqi groups opposed to Saddam about American intentions. The senators were told that even under good circumstances, it would take two years before the military could fully transfer control to an Iraqi government. As presented, the plan recalls postwar Germany and Japan, where American military occupations paved the way for transfers of power to democratic and constitutionally backed governments.
Iraq's democratic opposition parties are meeting this week in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq to finalise plans for a transitional government. But their vision of a post-Saddam administration is deeply at odds with proposals set out last week by President George Bush's special envoy to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad - and apparently endorsed by the Foreign Office. Under the plan a US military governor would rule post-war Iraq for up to a year.
The infrastructure of Saddam's ruling Baath party would remain largely intact, with the top two officials in each Iraqi ministry replaced by US military officers.
He said the Iraqi opposition in exile would not be allowed to control decisions for all Iraqis. “While we are listening to what the Iraqis are telling us, the United States government will make its decisions based on what is in the national interest of the United States,” he added.Sounds like a firm commitment to democracy for Iraq to me...
Turkey is demanding that it send 60,000 to 80,000 of its own troops into northern Iraq to establish “strategic positions” across a “security arc” as much as 140 to 170 miles deep in Iraq. That would take Turkish troops almost halfway to Baghdad. These troops would not be under U.S. command, according to Turkish sources, who say Turkey has agreed only to “coordination” between U.S. and Turkish forces. Ankara fears the Iraqi Kurds might use Saddam’s fall to declare independence. Kurdish leaders have not yet been told of this new plan, according to Kurdish spokesmen in Washington, who say the Kurds rejected even the earlier notion of a narrow buffer zone. Farhad Barzani, the U.S. representative of the main Kurdish party in Iraq, the KDP, says, “We have told them: American troops will come as liberators. But Turkish troops will be seen as invaders.”
Rumsfeld has also been encouraging a re-evaluation of the prohibition on targeting civilians, particularly with regard to actions directed at shattering support for the opponent regime. This kind of thinking was popular during the Second World War - as evidenced by the firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg - but was subsequently rejected during the negotiation of the Geneva Conventions. Today, a theory which holds that a regime has 'five strategic rings' is attracting adherents in Washington. According to this view, each ring represents a different facet of a society: its political leadership, economic system, supporting infrastructure, population and military forces. Air power is supposed to enable the United States to target opponents from the 'inside out', to bypass military forces and go directly for the political leadership. In this context, the indirect targeting of civilians - through the destruction of bridges, electrical grids, oil refineries and water-filtration plants - is considered justified because it hastens the course of the conflict (while, incidentally, reducing the cost of victory).There are a couple of things here that are unclear to me.
Broad agreement remains, however, that Saddam needs to be deposed, and quickly. I don't believe you can argue with that, so consider yourself shredded, for discussion of the factional powers in a liberated Iraq simply isn't an issue unless we assume it will be liberated.There's liberation and then there's liberation. Think of the difference between East Germany and West Germany, both "liberated" after WWII.
"We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."
It's also very nice that you're skeptical of America; many in the liberation movement are similarly skeptical, but not to the point of endorsing Saddam, as you do. For them, he's not an abstraction to be used for whacking the American government, he's a greater evil that's to be deposed.I propose that there is a difference between "endorsing Saddam", as you put it, and suggesting that the current US administration isn't terribly interesting in doing the people of Iraq a good turn.
"American officials do not seem to recognise how difficult, costly, and prolonged the task of creating a peaceful order and a viable democracy in Iraq will be."
- Fawaz A. Gerges, Professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Sarah Lawrence College
How the attempt to link bin Laden and Saddam impedes the war on terrorism - Haaretz editorialOne agenda for debate is lining up all the facts on the basis of whether they're for / against military intervention. The suffering of the Iraqi people has been conveniently ignored until it suddenly became a politically expedient argument for intervention. This doesn't do much to convince anyone of American sincerity, or willingness to follow through on making life better for Iraqis.
"You cannot just cherry-pick evidence that suits your case and ignore the rest. It is a cardinal rule of intelligence."I'd like to see some analysis from an Arab perspective on the practical aspects of setting up a process of "de-Baathification," possibly along the lines of "de-Nazification," before I sign on to replacing the Baath regime by force. Surely there's enough money out there in some think tank to do this kind of preparation and homework. And I'd like to see what people working in Arab universities, not US universities, come up with on "de-Baathification."
"Democracy aid often falls short in its methods of implementation. Democracy promoters have failed in many cases to seek a sophisticated understanding of the societies in which they work, resting on the misguided idea that their knowledge of democracy alone is a sufficient guide to foster democracy wherever they go. Too often they have taken upon themselves the role of agents of political change in transitional societies, treating local partners as mere assistants. Countless projects have foundered for lack of real ownership in recipient countries.And fer cryin' out loud, let's at least get Washington DC stocked up on bottled water, plastic sheeting, and duct tape before we launch this thing! Organizing some basic civil defense drills, so the general public has an idea of how to evacuate their workplace or metro station in an orderly fashion, is definitely called for at this point. Seems to me we're about six months to a year out from getting a handle on the database cleanup, tracking, and accountability problem (nuclear - bio - chem materials, dual use technology procurement, tracking of immigrants and cargo, etc.)
Implementation is gradually improving, with increased localism the main theme of change ..."
expanded comments available at different strings
All of you who advocate leaving Saddam Hussein in power, against the wishes of the Iraqi people, should be ashamed of yourselves.BubbaDude, please remember that being against a war with Iraq does not mean that someone is advocating leaving Saddam in power.
...between 300 and 400 cruise missiles would fall on Iraq each day for two consecutive days. It would be more than twice the number of missiles launched during the entire 40 days of the 1991 Gulf War.This isn't some kind of liberal spin - the Pentagon itself is saying that "there will not be a safe place in Baghdad". Note the lack of qualifiers there - not that there will be no safe place for Saddam, or that there will be no safe place for the Iraqi military. No, just a very straightforward "there will not be a safe place in Baghdad".
"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," a Pentagon official told America's CBS News after a briefing on the plan. "The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before."
« Older The worlds longest hockey game... | If you get the chance to sleep... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Sheesh. How often have conservatives said that good intentions are not enough in foreign policy? Why are they so eager to show off how good they are being - or how good they presume they are being, rather - now? I mean, really. They support democracy and human rights. Goodie for them. They also support a mass slaughter with highly possible adverse long-term consequences for the United States, all the result of a war that cannot be justified by extant moral theory.
posted by raysmj at 11:31 PM on February 16, 2003