Patrick Seale "The Bush administration's dangerous colonial adventure"

Greetings,
 
A lucid analysis by Patrick Seale.  These have all
been made before, but coming from a figure like
Seale says much:

 1) The US, in its desire for a quick and absolute
 victory, is becoming desperate, with the likelihood
 of pursuing a war strategy that will result in large
 civilian Iraqi casualties
 
 2) The diverging views between Britian and the US
 for "post Saddam" Hussein may strain relations
between
 the 2 countries, leading to interesting new   
 geopolitical realities
 
 3) The US is preparing for a direct colonial rule of
 Iraq similar to that of the British occupation of
 Egypt in 1882
 
 4) The US administration is placing incompetent
 officials to administer post-Saddam Iraq
 
--------------------- 
 
> > The Bush administration's dangerous colonial
> > adventure
> >
>
======================================================
> > 
> > By Patrick Seale
> > The Daily Star, 4 April 2003
> > http://dailystar.com.lb/opinion/04_04_03_b.asp
> > 
> > The message from Washington and London is that the
> 
> > war  in  Iraq
> > has entered a "decisive phase." Allied forces at
> the
> > gates of the
> > Iraqi capital are said to  be  engaging  Saddam 
> > Hussein's  elite
> > troops in fierce combat. What conclusions can one
> > draw?
> > 
> > - First, the coalition's political and military
> > leaders appear to
> > be under great strain, not only in  Washington 
> and 
> > London,  but
> > also  in  Madrid.  They  are  losing  ground  to 
> > their  domestic
> > opponents. Rows are breaking out, such  as  the 
> > widely  reported
> > clash over strategy between US Defense Secretary
> > Donald  Rumsfeld
> > and General Tommy Franks, the US military
> commander.
> > American and
> > British leaders must now heed the dictum  of 
> Field 
> > Marshal  Von
> > Moltke, chief of the Prussian General Staff  and 
> > victor  of  the
> > 1870-71  war  against  France.  "No  military 
> > plan,"  he   said,
> > "survives the first contact with the enemy".
> > 
> > Pressures to bring the war and the Iraqi regime to
> 
> > a  quick  end
> > are now so intense that General Franks is not 
> even 
> > waiting  for
> > the 4th Infantry Division to join  the  battle, 
> > although  it  is
> > probably the best mechanized division in the US
> > Army. Having been
> > rerouted from Turkey, its troops have only just
> > started  arriving
> > in Kuwait, and will not be ready to  fight  for 
> > another  two  or
> > three weeks. Yet, in the desperate hope of a quick
> 
> > victory,  the
> > US is pressing ahead with the attack on Baghdad.
> > There is clearly
> > immense anger, frustration and  impatience  at 
> > Iraq's  continued
> > resistance to the invasion. Arabs were not meant
> to 
> > behave  like
> > this! They should have surrendered or run away! In
> 
> > its  arrogant
> > expectation of a decisive outcome, America may 
> once
> >  again  have
> > created mirages in the sand.
> > 
> > - Second, the US is adjusting its military means
> to
> > cope with the
> > new situation. Reinforcements are  being  flown 
> in 
> > and  greater
> > firepower giant bunker-busting munitions and
> carpet
> > bombing by B-
> > 52s is being used to attempt to destroy Iraq's 
> > Republican  Guard
> > divisions defending the capital. As a direct
> > consequence  of  the
> > new strategy, the toll of Iraqi  civilian 
> > casualties  is  rising
> > rapidly. The trumpeted "concern" to avoid civilian
> > deaths is  now
> > being abandoned by a desperate United States.
> > 
> > - Third, anxious to isolate the Iraqi battlefield 
> > and  deny  the
> > Iraqis any help from outside, the US has issued
> > severe threats to
> > Syria and Iran not to intervene.  It  is  worried 
> > that  weapons,
> > supplies and volunteers might begin to infiltrate 
> > across  Iraq's
> > porous frontiers and stiffen the resistance. But
> > Syria  and  Iran
> > may have an interest in weakening the US forces as
> > much  as  they
> > can so as not to be the  next  targets  of  an 
> > American  attack.
> > Secretary of State Colin Powell's visit to Ankara 
> > suggests  that
> > the  US  is  also  concerned  to  ensure  that 
> > Turkey  does  not
> > complicate the situation in northern Iraq by
> moving 
> > against  the
> > Kurds as they harass Iraqi positions around
> Kirkuk.
> > Having fought
> > with American special forces, as in this week's
> > campaign  against
> > the al-Ansar enclave, the Kurds will expect a
> > post-war  political
> > reward in the form of increased autonomy.  This, 
> > above  all,  is
> > what worries the Turks.
> > 
> > - A fourth conclusion is that we are witnessing a 
> > clash  between
> > two military doctrines. The US cannot afford to
> > retreat  but  nor
> > can it tolerate a long war.  Its  declared 
> > objective  is  Saddam
> > Hussein's unconditional surrender. Hence its
> > strategy is to blast
> > Baghdad with overwhelming firepower and force the
> > regime  to  its
> > knees. In contrast, Iraq's strategy is to bleed
> the
> > American bull
> > (like a picador in a bull ring) and sap its morale
> > by sucking  it
> > into a long drawn-out urban guerrilla war. Saddam
> > Hussein appears
> > to  have  prepared  his  forces  for  this   sort 
> 
> > of   war   by
> > decentralizing army command  and  control  to  the
> 
> > lowest  level
> > possible, by delegating responsibility for each
> > urban center to a
> > trusted senior officer, and by supplying each town
> 
> > with  troops,
> > weapons, fuel and food. 
> > 
> > - A fifth  broad  conclusion  is  that,  in  spite
> 
> > of  undoubted
> > pressures  and  internal  strains,  the  mindset 
> of
> >   the   Bush
> > administration  remains  so  far  unchanged.  The 
> > war   we   are
> > witnessing is the application of the  wrong 
> > conclusions  America
> > drew from the attacks of Sept. 11. With its 
> > ideology  shaped  by
> > right-wing  think  tanks  and  pro-Israeli 
> > lobbyists,  the  Bush
> > administration refused even to consider  that 
> > America  had  been
> > attacked because of its biased and mistaken
> policies
> > in the  Arab
> > and Muslim world. Instead it was persuaded  that 
> > the  "roots  of
> > terror" lay in the "failed," "sick" and  "corrupt"
> 
> > societies  of
> > the Middle East. It followed that  it  was 
> > necessary  to  change
> > these regimes and reform these societies. Hence
> the
> > Iraq war as a
> > first step to the "remodeling" of the entire
> region!
> > What  is  to
> > happen in Iraq after the war? As  both  the 
> > Pentagon  and  Colin
> > Powell  have  made  clear,  the  United  States 
> > wants  "dominant
> > control" over a post-Saddam  Iraq.  It  appears 
> to 
> > be  planning
> > direct rule, somewhat on the model of British 
> > colonial  rule  in
> > Egypt after the 1882  occupation.  The  civil 
> > administration  of
> > Iraq, as well as humanitarian assistance and
> > reconstruction, will
> > be the responsibility of retired Lieutenant
> General
> > Jay Garner, a
> > man notorious for his arms dealing and his  close 
> > personal  ties
> > with Israel's Likudniks, acting as a sort of 
> > pro-consul  on  the
> > model of Lord Cromer in Egypt. Meanwhile, 
> military 
> > affairs  and
> > security will be the responsibility of General
> > Franks' deputy  in
> > CENTCOM, Lieutenant  General  John  Abizaid 
> > (apparently  on  the
> > strength of his knowledge of Arabic!) on the model
> 
> > of  Britain's
> > Field Marshal Lord Kitchener. Thus, two US
> generals,
> >  Garner  and
> > Abizaid, both strikingly ill-fit  for  the  job, 
> > will  have  the
> > destiny of Iraq in their hands. Backed by US
> > military force, they
> > will be assisted by a small army of  American 
> > administrators  to
> > run the various regions  and  "ministries."  In  a
> 
> > throwback  to
> > colonial rule, the US even wants to  take  over 
> the
> >  running  of
> > Iraq's oil industry, the foundation of  its 
> > economy,  which  has
> > been run for decades by Iraqis and employs 50,000
> > people. No role
> > seems to be  in  consideration  for  US-backed 
> > Iraqi  opposition
> > figures like Ahmad Chalabi or Kanan Makiya who, if
> > they  make  an
> > appearance at all, will almost certainly be 
> > considered  traitors
> > and Quislings by Iraqis.
> > 
> > The British view is quite different. Prime
> Minister
> > Tony Blair is
> > pressing for a UN-sponsored conference of  all 
> > Iraq's  political
> > groups. He wants the UN, not the US, to play  the 
> > leading  role.
> > Needing political cover, Blair has  other  demands
> 
> > as  well.  He
> > wants  real  progress  toward  a  resolution  of  
> > the   Israeli-
> > Palestinian  conflict,  including  a  total 
> freeze 
> >  on   Jewish
> > settlements  and  an  effective  monitoring 
> > mechanism.  This  is
> > causing  a  crisis  in  Anglo-Israeli  relations. 
> > Israeli  Prime
> > Minister Ariel Sharon has already sent  Foreign 
> > Minister  Silvan
> > Shalom to Washington to undermine  the  British 
> > position.  Blair
> > will soon discover that Sharon has more clout than
> > himself in the
> > American capital. In Iraq, Blair does not  want 
> > British  troops,
> > already stretched to the limit, to be given 
> > policing  duties  in
> > occupied Iraq, where they would inevitably be seen
> > as lackeys  of
> > a US colonial-type administration. British 
> opinion 
> > would  rebel
> > against any such thankless and subordinate role.
> > 
> > But it is unlikely that Blair will get his way
> with
> > Bush  on  any
> > of these counts. Indeed, the growing perception
> that
> > Blair  lacks
> > real influence in Washington is beginning to sap
> his
> > position  at
> > home. He has split his own Labor Party,  damaged 
> > Britain's  ties
> > with  France  and  Germany,   and   shown   that  
> > the   "special
> > relationship" with the United States is  nothing 
> > but  a  one-way
> > street, with no rewards for Britain but only
> > burdens. With such a
> > lamentable record, Blair's political future  must 
> > surely  be  in
> > doubt.
> > 
> > Bush's other ally, Spain's  Jose  Maria  Aznar, 
> is 
> > also  facing
> > domestic problems and possible defeat at  national
> 
> > elections  in
> > 2004. He was rash enough to give his support to
> Bush
> > against  the
> > wishes of the great majority of Spaniards.
> Municipal
> > elections in
> > May are likely to confirm that his conservative 
> > party  has  lost
> > ground to its Socialist opponents,  led  by 
> > Jose-Luis  Rodrigues
> > Zabatero. Led by Bush and a cabal of
> > neoconservatives, the United
> > States has embarked on a colonial  misadventure. 
> It
> >  has  always
> > opposed the emergence of an Arab  power  able  to 
> > challenge  its
> > interests. But now we are witnessing a qualitative
> > change  in  US
> > policy. The United States already  has  a 
> military 
> > presence  in
> > almost  every  Arab  country,  and  exerts  
> > enormous   influence
> > everywhere. Bush has gone further still.  He  is 
> > applying  naked
> > military force  against  a  major  Arab  country 
> in
> >  pursuit  of
> > unchallenged hegemony. The coming months are
> likely
> > to prove  the
> > folly of his gamble.
> > 
> > Patrick  Seale,  a  veteran  Middle  East 
> analyst, 
> > wrote   this
> > commentary for The Daily Star
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms,
> and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com