Re: [A-List] US imperialism: carving up Iraq and beyond

["Salaam Blackmore" <blackmore@xxxxxxxxx>]

Poignant typo or Freudian slip?

"a policy which defines the US military as 'the calvary on
 the new American frontier'........"

Salaam

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@mbs.fi>
To: <a-list@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:09 PM
Subject: [A-List] US imperialism: carving up Iraq and beyond


> What happens next?
>
> Part two: There are more than simple commercial interests at stake in the
> new Iraq ... America's hawks are planning their new world order. By Neil
> Mackay
> The Sunday Herald, 6 April 2003
>
> JAY GARNER doesn't like his latest nickname -- the Sheriff of Baghdad. He
> sees it as a slur -- an affront and insult to a man who has been grandly
> designated by Washington as the director of the Office of Reconstruction
and
> Humanitarian Assistance for Iraq. Other titles include Iraq's new king,
> viceroy, pro-consul, regent and president.
>
> But to his critics, the term sheriff is the most apt. To many dissenting
> voices across the globe (and to a lesser extent within the more liberal
> circles on Capitol Hill), Garner, a retired army lieutenant-general, and
the
> batch of American neo-conservatives chosen to help him run post-war Iraq,
> are literally cowboys. Each member of the US government-in- waiting comes
> equipped with a 'trained Iraqi' to help them run their particular arm of
> government -- a 'good injun' .
>
> Only a few weeks ago, Vice-Admiral Ralph Weymouth, one of the leading US
> military voices raised against the war, said 'there [is still] too much of
> the Wild West in America'. He is right. Garner and his team are the result
> of a policy formulated by Team Bush even before Dubya conjured up his
> election win -- a policy which defines the US military as 'the calvary on
> the new American frontier'.
>
> That new frontier is the world itself. One month before the elections, the
> Project For The New American Century, a think-tank set up by Donald
Rumsfeld
> (now the defence secretary ), Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Paul
> Wolfowitz (now Rumsfeld's deputy), Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff)
and
> George Bush's brother Jeb, outlined their vision of the world in the
> blueprint of the global vision shared by the hawkish neo-conservatives now
> in power in Washington DC.
>
> That document was entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies,
Forces
> And Resources For A New Century. In it, the hawks say: 'The United States
> has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional
> security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
> justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the
> Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.' It goes on to
> call for 'global US pre-eminence', 'shaping the international security
order
> in line with American interests' and states that 'even should Saddam pass
> from the scene' US troops should remain in the Gulf. The hawks' manifesto
> also says peace-keeping missions 'demand American political leadership
> rather than that of the United Nations'. To the hawks, they are the only
> guys who can wear the white hats.
>
> Paul Wolfowitz is the Bush administration's key ideologue, a man with a
> dazzling intellect and a terrifying conviction that America is on an
almost
> divine mission to battle evil. Rebuilding America's Defences is his
vision.
> And it is Wolfowitz who is the architect for post-war Iraq. With Baghdad
all
> but beaten into submission, Wolfowitz's grand project is almost complete.
>
> With the patronage of Vice-President Cheney, the deputy defence secretary,
> or Wolfowitz of Arabia, as he's come to be known, has dispatched his best
> protZgZs to Kuwait City, where they are currently encamped in beachside
> villas brushing up on how they will run Iraq . Jay Garner is boss, but
below
> him are a group of former army officers, US diplomats and bureaucrats .
> There isn't even a semblance of pretence that this is anything other than
a
> Pentagon operation. Garner reports directly to General Tommy Franks at
> Centcom in Qatar
>
> The government-in-waiting includes Robert Reilly, the former head of the
> Voice of America. He is one of the True Believers or Wolfie's people --
> those ideologically-enraptured Americans who want to recast Iraq in the
> image of America -- right down to making the country a friend of Israel.
>
> Others include Timothy Carney, a former ambassador to Sudan -- who
Wolfowitz
> personally invited to join the fun. Carney is lined up for the Baghdad
> ministry of industry. Then there is Barbara Bodine, aka the mayor of
> Baghdad. She's the former ambassador to Yemen.
>
> Another controversial figure is Michael Mobbs -- a Pentagon lawyer who
> advocates imprisoning US citizens indefinitely and without charge as part
of
> the war on terror. He will take charge of 11 of the 23 Iraqi ministries.
> Most controversial appointment of all comes with the Orwellian flourish of
> putting James Woolsey, the former head of the CIA, in charge of the
ministry
> of information.
>
> Britain is far from happy with this vision for a new order in Iraq. Blair
> has assured the Commons that Iraq should be run by Iraqi people as soon as
> possible. He wants a 'broadly representative' Iraqi government rather than
> the country being run by Americans. Britain also wants the United Nations
to
> take the lead in any post-war administration in Iraq with a quick turnover
> to a legitimate Iraqi government. In this, the UK is supported by Colin
> Powell and the US state department, who hope UN involvement will encourage
> the international community to share the burden of post-war
reconstruction.
> But Rumsfeld's Pentagon, fuelled by the vision of Wolfowitz, is having
none
> of it , and has been repeatedly undermining UN involvement, still chewing
> its lip in anger over the snub on a second resolution on Iraq which would
> have authorised -- and legitimised -- war.
>
> As a slap in the face to the more dovish State Department, the Pentagon
> rejected nominees put forward by Powell and has also been able to force
> their so-called 'pet Iraqis' into advisory positions in the interim
cabinet.
> Chief among these is Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the exiled Iraqi National
> Congress -- a man loathed by the State Department. He was previously
> convicted in absentia in Jordan for his part in a multi-million dollar
> banking fraud. Wolfowitz has also wangled other Iraqi advisory posts,
> including places for Chalabi's nephew Salem, and three of his associates .
>
> But maybe these 'tame Iraqis' aren't quite as obedient as they first
seemed.
> A row is brewing in the ranks of the INC which could derail the Pentagon's
> plan. One very senior INC official said Chalabi would not countenance a
> purely advisory role. 'Our position is that no Americans should run Iraqi
> ministries,' he said.
>
> However, this may just be a blip on the radar. Most Iraqis who are working
> with America are loyal to the Bush cause. At a recent meeting in the White
> House , Iraqi exiles were falling over themselves to swear allegiance to
the
> 'big project'. One, Emad Dhia, warned Bush not to withdraw from Iraq too
> soon, saying: 'Don't just get in and jump out.' Another Zainab al-Suwaij,
> executive director of the American Islamic Congress, told him: 'I am at
your
> service.'
>
> Wolfowitz's side-kick at the Pentagon, undersecretary of defence Douglas J
> Feith, has helped draft a post-war plan for Iraq under which the military
> would maintain control of the country for an indefinite period.
>
> Amid all this, Tony Blair looks sidelined and ridiculous. The Foreign
Office
> squeaks about a 'relatively fluid' number of British officials taking part
> in the planning of post-war Iraq, but it is clear that the Pentagon will
> steamroller anyone who gets in the way . Britain, the only other real
power
> in the 'coalition', was not even consulted .
>
> The UK will be able to put its internationalist case to Bush when Blair
> meets the President in Belfast on Monday to discuss a new Iraqi
> government -- but it will be fairly futile. As one UN official said: 'It
is
> common knowledge that the US want to go it alone without the UN.' Another
> said: 'Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest have the ascendancy and they think,
> having gone it alone in the war, they should get the benefit of being seen
> as liberators. Garner is their man. He is a true believer.'
>
> There is a clear ideological agenda at work. Garner signed a statement
> released by the ultra-right wing Jewish Institute for National Security
> Affairs which praised the Israeli Defence Force for its 'remarkable
> restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of
a
> Palestinian Authority'. After one JINSA junket he said: 'A strong Israel
is
> an asset that American military planners and political leaders can rely
on.'
> Woolsey also sits on the advisory board of JINSA.
>
> The ideological battles will also trickle over into business dividends for
> the neo-cons behind the new Iraq. After leaving the military, Garner
became
> president of SY Technologies, a defence company specialising in missile
> systems. It built the Patriot missiles which have levelled Iraq. The
company
> was also awarded a $1.5 billion contract this year to provide logistics
> services to US special forces.
>
> Only US companies will be allowed to bid for the reconstruction of Iraq,
> sending shudders down the spines of those who fear the occupation may have
a
> specific aim of rewarding corporate America -- or, specifically, those who
> have been good to the Bush administration.
>
> That might explain why Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), a subsidiary of
> Cheney's old company, Halliburton, secured a no-bid contract to put out
oil
> well fires. The contract was granted under a Bush administration waiver
that
> allowed reconstruction firms to be handpicked. Halliburton and Bechtel,
> another company with strong Republican links, were on the US-only
shortlist
> for a major $900 million reconstruction contract that will be overseen by
> Garner's office. Halliburton specialises in oil, construction and military
> support services -- the holy trinity of post-war profiteering. KBR
currently
> has thousands of military support personnel in Kuwait as part of a
> multi-year contract worth almost $1bn.
>
> The Pentagon is also pressing ahead to 'temporarily' manage Iraq's oil
> industry after the war and use the proceeds to rebuild the nation. Tony
> Blair doesn't seem to agree . In March he told the Commons: 'Let the oil
> revenues, which people falsely claim we want to seize, be put in a trust
for
> the Iraqi people, administered through the UN.' Dan Plesch, of the Royal
> United Services Institute, said: 'If oil revenues pay for bomb damage, it
is
> the Chinese principle of putting someone in front of the firing squad and
> charging them for the bullet.'
>
> The administration intends to install a senior American oil executive to
> oversee the oil industry, yet UN and British officials say the United
States
> lacks the legal authority to export oil even on an interim basis as oil
> sales prior to the war were controlled by the UN under the oil-for-food
> programme. Bill Clinton's old assistant secretary for energy, David L
> Goldwyn, says: 'I don't believe that the US has the legal power to seize
and
> sell Iraq's oil absent a new Security Council resolution.'
>
> The attempts by Britain to reign in the US seem almost a sideshow now. On
> Friday, while Jack Straw spoke optimistically of a UN-sponsored conference
> to decide the shape of a future administration, with the support of his
> French counterpart Dominique de Villepin, Wolfowitz was in the Watergate
> Hotel in Washington saying the UN shouldn't have an executive role in
> administering Iraq .
>
> Meanwhile, what of the Iraqi people? What do they think of the cynical
> politicking ? Dishan Miran, a senior member of the Kurdish Democratic
Party,
> said: 'These plans are not workable at all. While the British and American
> forces are liberators, it will give a wrong impression if they are talking
> about having direct rule by the US. It will not go down well with the
Iraqi
> people. We believe any interim authority should be a national assembly
which
> includes people in the opposition committee [established in London in
> December] and those still inside Iraq.'
>
> Salah al-Shaikhly, deputy head of the Iraqi National Accord, puts it more
> succinctly. 'If there's an administration in Iraq,' he said, 'it should be
> run by Iraqis.'
>
>
>
>
>