- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Liberated Iraq could be ruled by US general
By Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 12/10/2002)
An American general could be appointed to rule a liberated Iraq as part of a White House plan modelled on Gen Douglas MacArthur‘s rule over Japan after the Second World War.
Plans for an Iraqi opposition figure to replace Saddam Hussein when the dictator is overthrown have been modified because of fears that this could lead to anarchy and even the break-up of Iraq.
Gen Tommy Franks, the head of US Central Command and the man who would lead any invasion of Iraq, has already been tipped for the possible post but Pentagon sources said a more "political" general might be better suited to the task.
The Pentagon is most enthusiastic about the plan, not least because it would give a general extraordinary power over a country that has the second largest known oil reserves in the world.
But the State Department has grave misgivings about the long-term occupation of a Muslim country and the plan could provoke a rift between America and its allies, including Britain, which is likely to play a key role in a new Iraq.
As reported in The Telegraph last month, a senior defence official advocated a "de-Nazification" process in Iraq so that America could identify "who are the good bureaucrats and who are the Ba‘athists" after a war.
Since then, the model has shifted from Germany to Japan because of the desire to keep Iraq unified. After the Second World War, Germany was partitioned because Soviet troops took control of the eastern sector.
Germany remained under military rule for four years after 1945 while Japan was occupied for more than six. No one in the Bush administration is advocating direct American control in Iraq lasting more than a year.
The new plan is a reaction to the difficulties experienced in Afghanistan, where quarrelling warlords have kept the country unstable, as well as a means of ensuring that American forces are able to search for and destroy weapons of mass destruction.
While Congress has been voting on an authorisation for President George W Bush to go to war and tortuous negotiations at the United Nations have continued, the White House has been turning its thoughts to what happens after Saddam.
A senior official conceded to the New York Times that the new plan represented a scaling down of the Iraqi opposition‘s role. "We‘re just not sure what influence groups on the outside would have on the inside," the official said. "There would also be differences among the Iraqis and we don‘t want chaos and anarchy in the early process."
Last weekend Zalmay Khalizad, special assistant to Mr Bush for the Near East, said in a speech: "The coalition will assume - and the preferred option - responsibility for the territorial defence and security of Iraq after liberation. Our intent is not conquest and occupation of Iraq, but to do what needs to be done to achieve the disarmament mission and to get Iraq ready for a democratic transition."
In Washington, the political focus has moved away from the UN and is firmly on invasion plans and a post-Saddam regime. American officials have said they do not expect the UN Security Council to authorise force.
A compromise resolution, they have said, would demand that Saddam must give up weapons of mass destruction and leave the door open for a second resolution, as proposed by the French, specifying military action.
The White House has made clear that it would see no need to return to the UN under such circumstances. "Everyone would read this resolution in their own way," said one official.
Mr Khalizad said that after Saddam was ousted the Iraqi armed forces would be "downsized" and any Ba‘ath party officials removed.
"Much of the bureaucracy would carry on under new management," he said.
One of the reasons the Bush administration is making public its plans for a successor regime is to encourage Iraqis to desert Saddam when an invasion begins.
Some officials also hope that he might be assassinated or opt for exile.
By Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 12/10/2002)
An American general could be appointed to rule a liberated Iraq as part of a White House plan modelled on Gen Douglas MacArthur‘s rule over Japan after the Second World War.
Plans for an Iraqi opposition figure to replace Saddam Hussein when the dictator is overthrown have been modified because of fears that this could lead to anarchy and even the break-up of Iraq.
Gen Tommy Franks, the head of US Central Command and the man who would lead any invasion of Iraq, has already been tipped for the possible post but Pentagon sources said a more "political" general might be better suited to the task.
The Pentagon is most enthusiastic about the plan, not least because it would give a general extraordinary power over a country that has the second largest known oil reserves in the world.
But the State Department has grave misgivings about the long-term occupation of a Muslim country and the plan could provoke a rift between America and its allies, including Britain, which is likely to play a key role in a new Iraq.
As reported in The Telegraph last month, a senior defence official advocated a "de-Nazification" process in Iraq so that America could identify "who are the good bureaucrats and who are the Ba‘athists" after a war.
Since then, the model has shifted from Germany to Japan because of the desire to keep Iraq unified. After the Second World War, Germany was partitioned because Soviet troops took control of the eastern sector.
Germany remained under military rule for four years after 1945 while Japan was occupied for more than six. No one in the Bush administration is advocating direct American control in Iraq lasting more than a year.
The new plan is a reaction to the difficulties experienced in Afghanistan, where quarrelling warlords have kept the country unstable, as well as a means of ensuring that American forces are able to search for and destroy weapons of mass destruction.
While Congress has been voting on an authorisation for President George W Bush to go to war and tortuous negotiations at the United Nations have continued, the White House has been turning its thoughts to what happens after Saddam.
A senior official conceded to the New York Times that the new plan represented a scaling down of the Iraqi opposition‘s role. "We‘re just not sure what influence groups on the outside would have on the inside," the official said. "There would also be differences among the Iraqis and we don‘t want chaos and anarchy in the early process."
Last weekend Zalmay Khalizad, special assistant to Mr Bush for the Near East, said in a speech: "The coalition will assume - and the preferred option - responsibility for the territorial defence and security of Iraq after liberation. Our intent is not conquest and occupation of Iraq, but to do what needs to be done to achieve the disarmament mission and to get Iraq ready for a democratic transition."
In Washington, the political focus has moved away from the UN and is firmly on invasion plans and a post-Saddam regime. American officials have said they do not expect the UN Security Council to authorise force.
A compromise resolution, they have said, would demand that Saddam must give up weapons of mass destruction and leave the door open for a second resolution, as proposed by the French, specifying military action.
The White House has made clear that it would see no need to return to the UN under such circumstances. "Everyone would read this resolution in their own way," said one official.
Mr Khalizad said that after Saddam was ousted the Iraqi armed forces would be "downsized" and any Ba‘ath party officials removed.
"Much of the bureaucracy would carry on under new management," he said.
One of the reasons the Bush administration is making public its plans for a successor regime is to encourage Iraqis to desert Saddam when an invasion begins.
Some officials also hope that he might be assassinated or opt for exile.
