Iraqi opposition slams US plan for military governor

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

So if the American’s overthrow Saddam, they will leave his Baathist party still in control, and a Saddam Mark 2 as the head?

Iraqi opposition slams plan for military governor

A leading figure in Iraq’s opposition last night rounded on American plans to install a US military governor in Baghdad to rule post-war Iraq, describing the plans as an ‘unmitigated disaster’, ‘deeply stupid’ and a ‘mess’. In an interview with The Observer, Kanan Makiya, an adviser to Iraq’s main opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, said America now appeared to have dumped its commitment to bring Western-style democracy to Iraq. Instead, under pressure from Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf states, Washington was preparing to leave Iraq under the control of President Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party. ‘This would be an unmitigated disaster for the long-term relationship between the US and the Iraqi people,’ he said. ‘The Iraqi opposition is going to become anti-American the day after liberation. It is a great irony.’ 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. ‘The plan is bizarre. It is Baathism with an American face,’ said Makiya, an Iraqi author and professor at Brandeis University in Massachusetts. ***

The country needed to undergo a process of ‘de-Baathification’ similar to the de-Nazification of post-war Germany, he added. The White House has been badly stung by Makiya’s criticism, and urged him last week not to publish a hostile opinion piece, arguing it would be ‘counter-productive’. The Observer today prints his article in full. Yesterday the chairman of the Iraqi National Congress, Ahmad Chalabi, who many people had expected to become Iraq’s new president, also derided Washington’s proposals. ‘The vision of having US military officers three deep in every ministry is not workable,’ he told The Observer . Chalabi, who lives in London, said demonstrators who attended anti-war protests across Britain yesterday were misguided. ‘I would urge them to think again,’ he said. ‘War is a horrible thing to wish on anyone. But I firmly believe that the Iraqi people want the US to get rid of Saddam. Blair is doing the right thing.’ Chalabi was especially scathing of the German government, which he said was led by ‘ageing German leftists wishing to absolve their conscience at the expense of the Iraqi people’. It was Germany which had supplied Saddam with chemical weapons in the 1980s, he pointed out.

The Pentagon and the vice-president Dick Cheney are broadly in favour of introducing Western-style democracy to Iraq but the State Department under Colin Powell and the CIA believe it could have a destabilising influence on the region. Iraq’s neighbours, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, are also vehemently opposed to any federal arrangement that gives power to Iraq’s Kurds or Shiites. Chalabi said he was dismayed that the British government apparently endorsed a plan that would leave the minority Sunni elite, which has run Iraq for decades, in power, even though most of Iraq’s 23 million inhabitants are Shiite. The Iraqi opposition is also deeply suspicious of an agreement between Washington and Turkey that will see thousands of Turkish troops enter northern Iraq, ostensibly for humanitarian purposes. Turkey, with its own disaffected Kurdish population, wants its military to occupy northern Iraq to prevent Kurdish groups from seizing the oil-rich northern city of Kirkuk and proclaiming an autonomous Kurdish homeland.

The two Kurdish parties which have controlled a mountainous enclave of northern Iraq since 1991 insist that they want only a regional government. It now seems that their militias will play virtually no role in liberating Iraq and that, following pressure from Washington, they will leave the job to the American military. An Iraqi opposition conference scheduled for this week has so far been delayed three times, with Washington making it clear it regards the meeting as an unhelpful distraction. Khalilzad has now reluctantly agreed to turn up. Chalabi said opponents in Britain of a US-led war in Iraq preferred to ignore the brutal reality of Saddam’s regime. ‘There is a strong streak of anti-Americanism in Britain and Europe that blinds them.’

2

Brilliant thread, Malik. The sad part is, that this is precisely what anti-sanctions activists have feared from the initial moment there was serious discussion (in the US) regarding regime change in Iraq. (This was during the early years of the Clinton administration). Even the darling of the US admin., the Iraqi-Hamid-Karzai-waiting-in-the-wings, (and also incidentally the embezzler wanted for fraud charges in Jordan), Ahmed Chalabi, has stated in this article that 'The vision of having US military officers three deep in every [Iraqi] ministry is not workable'.

Anyone who genuinely believes that the US will implement regime change in Iraq and follow that with subsequent elections striving to implement a fair representation of Shiites, Sunnis, and Christians in the new Iraqi government, is (atleast in my opinion) exclusively deluding themselves. One only has to study the statements currently being issued by these Iraqi opposition groups in exile: A leading figure in Iraq's opposition last night rounded on American plans to **install a US military governor in Baghdad* to rule post-war Iraq, describing the plans as an 'unmitigated disaster', 'deeply stupid' and a 'mess'. ...] Kanan Makiya, an adviser to Iraq's main opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, said America now appeared to have dumped its commitment to bring Western-style democracy to Iraq. Instead, under pressure from Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf states, Washington was preparing to leave Iraq under the control of President Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.*

One could make much also of the choice of Zalmay Khalilzad, a former aide to the American oil company Unocal, as "President George Bush's special envoy to Iraq". But sadly, there is nothing in this selection that would warrant amazement from anyone today - it is to be expected afterall.

The majority of Iraq's population is under the age of twenty. IF the US procees with regime change in Iraq, only to install a more compliant dictator in place of Saddam Hussein, then i hope they are prepared to accept the repercussions of doing so. Let Afghanistan serve as an example to those who choose not to forget history - you cannot endorse repressive and dictatorial regimes in one country without expecting the repercussions to affect your own populace sooner or later.

3

The majority of Iraq's population is under the age of twenty. IF the US procees with regime change in Iraq, only to install a more compliant dictator in place of Saddam Hussein, then i hope they are prepared to accept the repercussions of doing so.

Yes once again the minority Kurds and majority Shia's will be be betrayed by America, and left to the mercy of a Saddam-like thug...if the US gets to implement this plan. So much for liberating the Iraqi people and giving them democracy and freedom and all that.

4

So much for liberating the Iraqi people and giving them democracy and freedom and all that.
A man who “declared publicly in 1961 that Kuwait was part of Iraq and had no right to exist independently” is now being considered by the US to provide assistance during a post-Saddam Hussein transition. It took him almost 40 years to renounce this statement.

Envoy’s Effort to Recruit Iraqi Exile for Possible Future Government Sparks Protests, Judith Miller
NY Times, 13 February 2003

President Bush’s special envoy to the Iraqi opposition is quietly trying to recruit a former senior Iraqi official to help provide a transition to democracy in the event that Saddam Hussein is ousted, administration officials said today.

But the effort by Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House envoy, to woo Adnan Pachachi, an octogenarian exile who once served as a foreign minister and ambassador to the United Nations for Iraq, has sparked opposition within the administration and among other Iraqi exiles.

Mr. Pachachi declared publicly in 1961 that Kuwait was part of Iraq and had no right to exist independently, a statement he renounced in 1999.

Laith Kubba, another exile and a researcher at the Washington-based National Endowment for Democracy, defended Mr. Pachachi, calling him a “voice of authority and wisdom” and saying that “he must be allowed to play a role.”

Mr. Khalilzad recently traveled to the United Arab Emirates to recruit Mr. Pachachi. But officials said that several Pentagon officials and Iraq experts had warned Mr. Khalilzad that the effort at this late stage would backfire politically and could alienate Kuwait, an essential base of operations in any gulf war.

“The outreach to Mr. Pachachi, a once ardent Arab nationalist and Sunni Muslim, the minority branch of Islam in Iraq, suggests that the United States is mainly interested in perpetuating the status quo in a post-Saddam Iraq, and not in promoting democracy,” an administration official said.

Danielle Pletka, a vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based research center, called the effort “very disappointing.”

5

*A man who "declared publicly in 1961 that Kuwait was part of Iraq and had no right to exist independently" is now being considered by the US to provide assistance during a post-Saddam Hussein transition. It took him almost 40 years to renounce this statement. *

Does this guy not sound so like Saddam? Another reason to rightly state that the US will continue the post-Saddam era with much the same people, and same policies.

6

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
Does this guy not sound so like Saddam? Another reason to rightly state that the US will continue the post-Saddam era with much the same people, and same policies.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly, Malik. It contradicts the fundamental argument that the people of Iraq will be 'better off' after being 'liberated' by the US. No such genuine strategy of installing democracy was ever placed on the table for Iraq. Those who believe otherwise should heed the comments now being made by diverse Iraqi opposition groups and individuals.

7

The American's are going to follow the same policies they followed througout the 20th century i.e. install it's own dictatorial puppets in place of other dictators. But more often than not such policies have led to long term resentment against America which haunt the US for years to come ...

8

Exactly, Malik. It appears the US’s favourite defenceless people, the Kurds, seem to be slightly wary…

Kurdish leaders enraged by ‘undemocratic’ American plan to occupy Iraq, Patrick Cockburn
The Independent,17 February 2003

The US is abandoning plans to introduce democracy in Iraq after a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, according to Kurdish leaders who recently met American officials.

The Kurds say the decision resulted from pressure from US allies in the Middle East who fear a war will lead to radical political change in the region.

The Kurdish leaders are enraged by an American plan to occupy Iraq but largely retain the government in Baghdad. The only changes would be the replacement of President Saddam and his lieutenants with senior US military officers.

It undercuts the argument by George Bush and Tony Blair that war is justified by the evil nature of the regime in Baghdad.

“Conquerors always call themselves liberators,” said Sami Abdul-Rahman, deputy prime minister of the Kurdish administration, in a reference to Mr Bush’s speech last week in which he said US troops were going to liberate Iraq.

Mr Abdul-Rahman said the US had reneged on earlier promises to promote democratic change in Iraq. “It is very disappointing,” he said. “In every Iraqi ministry they are just going to remove one or two officials and replace them with American military officers.”

Kurdish officials strongly believe the new US policy is the result of pressure from regional powers, notably Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

The US appears to be quietly abandoning earlier declarations that it would make Iraq a model democracy in the Middle East. In Iraq, free elections would lead to revolutionary change because although the Shia Muslims and Kurds constitute three-quarters of the population, they are excluded from power in Baghdad by the Sunni Muslim establishment.

Kurdish leaders are deeply alarmed by US intentions, which only became clear at a meeting in Ankara earlier in the month and from recent public declarations by US officials. Hoshyar Zebari, a veteran Kurdish leader, said: “If the US wants to impose its own government, regardless of the ethnic and religious composition of Iraq, there is going to be a backlash.”

Mr Abdul-Rahman accuses the US of planning cosmetic changes in Iraq. “This is to give the government on a platter to the second line of Ba’athists [the ruling party],” he said.

The US appears to be returning to the policy it pursued at the end of the Gulf War in 1991. It did seek to get rid of President Saddambut wanted to avoid a radical change in Iraq. The US did not support the uprisings of Shia Muslims and Kurdsbecause it feared a transformation in Iraqi politics that might have destabilised its allies in the Middle East or benefited Iran.

The two Kurdish parties _ the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), which rules western Kurdistan, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan _ are at the heart of the Iraqi opposition. Together they rule four million people in an area the size of Switzerland that has been outside President Saddam’s control since 1991.

The change in American policy means marginalising the Iraqi opposition which has been seeking to unite. In response to the US decision, the Kurds and their allies have accelerated moves to hold a conference of opposition parties in Salahudin, the headquarters of the KDP, now scheduled for tomorrow. “We want to know if we are partners in regime change or not,” Mr Zebari said.

He spoke scathingly of any attempt by America “to bring in an Iraqi from the United States who has not seen his country for years and impose him by armed force”.

The destabilising impact of the impending war is already being felt in the mountains of northern Iraq. Turkey has demanded that its troops be allowed to take over a swath of territory along the border inside Iraq. The ostensible reason is to prevent a flood of Kurdish refugees trying to flee into Turkey, but the Kurdish parties say they are quite capable of doing this themselves. They say the Turkish demand, to which they suspect the US has agreed in return for the use of Turkish military facilities, is the first step in a Turkish plan to advance into Iraqi Kurdistan.

The Kurds fear that a US-led war against President Saddam might be the occasion for a Turkish effort to end the de facto independence enjoyed by Iraqi Kurds for more than a decade. One Kurdish leader said: “Turkey has made up its mind that it will intervene in northern Iraq in order to destroy us.”

9

The Iraqi opposition groups once quite vocal supporters of the US are now increasingly opposed to the American plans for Iraq. Now even the most staunchest pro-American opposition leader is blasting the American’s:-

Exiled leader attacks US plan](Exiled leader attacks US plan | UK news | The Guardian)

10

This is absolutely disgusting. On top of installing americans in the top three tiers of government, they are also planning to privatize the oil sector. Any guesses as to who is going to get the best oil deals?

It is a step back into the days of "raj".

11

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by aishaA: *
This is absolutely disgusting. On top of installing americans in the top three tiers of government, they are also planning to privatize the oil sector. Any guesses as to who is going to get the best oil deals?

It is a step back into the days of "raj".
[/QUOTE]

Guess who had the contracts for development of Iraqi oil capacity before the gulf war and can't reap the benefits because of the sanctions. yup...you guessed it...the French.

12

>>This is absolutely disgusting. On top of installing americans in the top three tiers of government, they are also planning to privatize the oil sector. Any guesses as to who is going to get the best oil deals? It is a step back into the days of “raj”.<<

From Kanan Makiya, a well-known, outspoken Iraqi exile (and former darling of the US admin.):

Our hopes betrayed, The Observer, 16 February 2003

Iraqi opposition slams plan for military governor, Luke Harding, The Observer, 16 February 2003

…Kanan Makiya, an adviser to Iraq’s main opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, said America now appeared to have dumped its commitment to bring Western-style democracy to Iraq. Instead, under pressure from Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf states, Washington was preparing to leave Iraq under the control of President Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party.

“This would be an unmitigated disaster for the long-term relationship between the US and the Iraqi people,” he said. “The Iraqi opposition is going to become anti-American the day after liberation. It is a great irony.”

13

The title says it all :rolleyes: So much for democracy and all that.

Full US Control Planned for Iraq, Karen DeYoung and Peter Slevin
Washington Post, 21 February 2003

14

Actually, Nadia, the title doesn't "say it all". To say so is sensationalist and misleading. The full control is in reference to not sharing duties with multi-national peace keeping forces, an interem government and local warlords. This is to actually to expedite the implementation of a representative Iraqi government from the lessons learned in Afghanistan.

Some excerpts from the article that explain this policy:

The Bush administration plans to take complete, unilateral control of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, with an interim administration headed by a yet-to-be named American civilian who would direct the reconstruction of the country and the creation of a "representative" Iraqi government...

We have a load of plans that could be carried out by an international group, a coalition group, or by us and a few others," one senior U.S. official. President Bush, the official said, doesn't want to close options until the participants in a military action are known and the actual postwar situation in Iraq becomes clear...

In addition to the consultative council, an Iraqi commission would be formed to reestablish a judicial system. An additional commission would write a new constitution, although officials emphasized that they would not expect to "democratize" Iraq along the lines of the U.S. governing system. Instead, they speak of a "representative Iraqi government."

Officials said the decision to install U.S. military and civilian administrations for an indeterminate time stems from lessons learned in Afghanistan, where power has been diffused among U.S. military forces still waging war against the remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda, a multinational security force of several thousand troops in which the United States does not participate, and the interim government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

The administration is particularly keen on averting interference by other regional powers, and cites the "ability of people like the Iranians and others to go in with money and create warlords" sympathetic to their own interests, one official said. "We don't want a weak federal government that plays into the hands of regional powers" and allows Iraq to be divided into de facto spheres of influence. "We don't want the Iranians to be paying the Shiites, the Turks the Turkmen and the Saudis the Sunnis," the official, referring to some of the main groups among dozens of Iraqi tribes and ethnic and religious groups...

15

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Seminole:

Actually, Nadia, the title doesn't "say it all". To say so is sensationalist and misleading.
[/QUOTE]

It is perfectly accurate. If it was not then please explain why the Iraqi opposition leaders are condeming America's plans for controlling Iraq, even the most pro-American?

16

Malik's question sums it all up. At the moment, we should be seeing plenty of Iraqi exile groups and individuals cheering on the US plans for war and the post-war era. On the contrary, they seem to be eagerly lining up to express their fears and sense of betrayal. Why? Why does Kanan Makiya state that,"The Iraqi opposition is going to become anti-American the day after liberation. It is a great irony"?

In terms of the Ba'ath party, the article does mention - and i am not certain how this goes down with members on this board who have so regularly demonized the entire Iraqi government - that the US post-war transition allows for the situation that, "A large number of current officials would be retained."

Here's the obligatory conspiracy theory for the day - the US will stay in the country for as long as it takes to ensure that not too 'uppity' an Iraqi ruler is democratically installed by the US. The Kurds can forget their rights, their aspirations for further autonomy in the north of Iraq - they will be dropped so fast, no one will remember. (We might have the token Kurdish official or two in the interim govt., for photo op's sake). Otherwise, it will be the same ol same ol - same system of dictatorship but with new, pro-Western faces.

17

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *In terms of the Ba'ath party, the article does mention - and i am not certain how this goes down with members on this board who have so regularly demonized the **entire* Iraqi government - that the US post-war transition allows for the situation that, "A large number of current officials would be retained."

[/QUOTE]

Nadia: I'm not sure that I recall anyone regularly demonizing the entire Iraqi government. If the "entire Iraqi government" includes the entrenched beauracracy (worker bees) which administers the policies of the Iraqi leadership, no one has demonized them, just as no one has demonized the Iraqi people. To the extent possible, I'm sure the reconstruction of Iraq will be more efficient and quicker if certain beauracratic institutions remain in place. One of the difficulties faced in reconstructing Afghanistan is that these institutions did not exist and they must be established from scratch.

I find it interesting that someone who is quite content leaving Saddam and his cronies in leadership positions would find fault with leaving lower echelon Ba'ath party worker bees in beauracratic positions in post-War Iraq to facilitate the delivery of food, medicine, clothes, water, etc. to the Iraqi people. It is the leadership and policy makers that have been rightly demonized, not Joe Iraqi who happens to work for or administer the Bagdad Water Company.

18

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *

In terms of the Ba'ath party, the article does mention - and i am not certain how this goes down with members on this board who have so regularly demonized the entire Iraqi government - that the US post-war transition allows for the situation that, "A large number of current officials would be retained."

[/QUOTE]

Nadia, that means the US will let Saddam's regime remain in power while getting rid of Saddam and some of his henchman - that's it. As proof of that is the public American calls for Saddam only to go into exile, with his family etc. Who carried out the acts of killing and persection of the Iraqi people that the American propoganda always goes on about, of not his party thugs and officials, police and militias. These people will remain in control, under a Saddam Mark 2 dictator appointed bt the American military governor - no wonder the Iraqi opposition is fuming.