Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jerry manning who wrote (385111)	4/3/2003 5:03:26 PM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Postwar battle already looming on control of Iraq At issue: How much of a role U.S. will play vs. the U.N. By Howard Fineman SPECIAL TO MSNBC.COM WASHINGTON, April 2 — Even before the battle of Baghdad is joined, a war has broken out here in the capital over who will control Iraq if and when coalition forces rout the regime of Saddam Hussein. On one side are Pentagon planners, neoconservative allies of Israel and Vice President Dick Cheney. On the other side are the State Department, America’s Arab and Muslim allies and many (though by no means all) congressional leaders in both parties. Who will choose the winner? President Bush, of course, perhaps with crucial advice from his dad. THE ISSUE IS: Who runs Iraq? The larger question: If America is going to administer the world in the name of security and freedom, who — if anyone — is going to help us do it? To oversimplify, but only slightly, the “Penta-Cons” pay lip service to international cooperation, but basically want the U.S. to go it alone, or certainly without the United Nations. We’ll be more effective, they say, and less encumbered by bureaucratic red tape and hypocritical allies. Opposite the Penta-Cons are the Diplomatists, who believe that we’ll be hated by the Muslim world forever if we don’t get out of Iraq ASAP. “It’s a catastrophe if the international community doesn’t take over right away,” an Arab diplomat told me. The Diplomatists also want the U.S. to push Israel to make concessions in its war with the Palestinians. “It’s the best way to prove that the invasion of Iraq wasn’t about subjugating the Arabs,” one said. There is logic in the views of both camps. Why should brave Americans, Britons and Aussies (among others) sacrifice their lives in order to turn Iraq over to the United Nations — which never had the guts to hold Saddam Hussein to account in the first place? Why should the U.N. Security Council, effectively controlled by anti-American France, be given a role? Specifically, why should France — whose oil and telecom companies have made millions dealing with Saddam — be allowed within a thousand miles of downtown Baghdad? The Penta-Cons want a post-war diplomatic coalition, but one of Our Choosing. The United Nations, in their view, should do no more than perhaps administer humanitarian relief and, for now, run the oil-for-food program. In terms of military supervision, they’ll accept a role for France-less NATO, and hope that Turkey, a NATO member (but not a member of the European Union) will take part — largely by not sending its troops into Northern Iraq. GOVERNMENT-IN-WAITING In the meantime, the Pentagon is busy setting up a government-in-waiting — a temporary military administration. As the for Iraqis themselves, the Penta-Cons are looking, at least initially, to the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group based in London and headed by doctor (and banker) Ahmad Chalabi. All of which is folly in the eyes of the Diplomatists. The more international partners the better, and the sooner the better. The State Department needs to take the lead role in the reassembly of Iraq, they say. Too much reliance on the American military and American companies will give ammunition to those who want to question our real motives for going to war in the first place. “This isn’t a war to make the world safe for Fluor and Bechtel, and certainly not Halliburton” said one Democratic senator, referring to three U.S.-based firms. As for which Iraqis should take part in a new government, influential Arab advisers to the Bush administration are warning against placing any trust in Chalabi, who has spent little time in Iraq. “He has no credibility and we’ve told the White House,” said one. Complete MSNBC politics coverage One skirmish between the Penta-Cons and Diplomatists took place the other day on Capitol Hill. Members of the appropriations committees “earmarked” money to administer the reconstruction of Iraq — and ordered that the money could only be spent by the State Department, not Defense. The idea was to send a signal to the White House. Soon enough, we’ll see who, if anyone, was listening. Howard Fineman is Newsweek’s chief political correspondent and an NBC News analyst.