[Futurework] RE: Long term siege

[Karen Watters Cole]

The rush to Baghdad and the rush to secure outpost cities is crucial to taking under coalition control as much of the territory of Iraq as possible so that a statement of fact can be made that they have taken over the country and argue that a coalition backed occupation is de facto, even before a ceasefire and then pressure Arabs to negotiate a surrender of whatever is left of leadership in Baghdad.   I think from earlier pre-shooting reading that British troops will remain over southern Iraq, perhaps as a concession to avoiding the image of US troops standing guard over the oil wells, and perhaps due to their military finesse with entrenched urban warfare.   The continued Blitz of Baghdad not only means that we are trying to kill the leadership, but also demonstrate the ferocity of American airpower, which is now the single most shock and awesome image and deterrent we have in gunboat diplomacy, as Genghis Khan did with his horses, Rome did with her foot soldiers and long shields and Britain did with her Navy.  The only response to force of this magnitude is guerrilla warfare, breaking the rules, and deceptive tactics.  We should not be surprised the armed opposition is resorting to it, although how they treat and/or torture their own people and captured soldiers is different.    The Pres. seized Iraqi assets by Executive Order on March 20, 2003 when he initiated hostilities.  Below, more on the debate about financing the reconstruction, which only partly explains why the White House has not submitted anything to Congress, hoping they can use Iraqi oil for self-financing – and why the House Energy committee yesterday reintroduced a bill to allow drilling in Alaska’s ANWR (again) – to apply pressure on Congress to go along with the President on this.   Excerpt: U.S., Allies Clash Over Plan to Use Iraqi Oil Profits for Rebuilding By Colum Lynch and Peter Behr, Washington Post Staff Writers @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15368-2003Apr2.html Thursday, April 3, 2003; Page A34 UNITED NATIONS, April 2 -- The Defense Department is pressing ahead with plans to temporarily manage Iraq's oil industry after the war and to use the proceeds to rebuild the country, creating a conflict with U.S. allies in Europe and the Middle East, according to diplomats and industry experts. The White House maintains that Iraq's oil revenue is essential to financing the country's postwar reconstruction. The administration intends to install a senior American oil executive to oversee Iraq's exploration and production. Iraqi experts now outside the country would be recruited to handle future oil sales. Industry sources said former Shell Oil Co. chief executive Philip J. Carroll is the leading candidate to direct production. But the postwar oil strategy is clouded by legal questions about the right of the United States to manage Iraq's oil fields. Administration officials are searching for a legal basis to justify the U.S. plan. If the war succeeds, the United States may claim a legal right as an occupying power to sell the oil for the benefit of Iraq, people close to the situation said. U.N. and British officials said the United States lacks the legal authority to begin exporting oil even on an interim basis without a new Security Council mandate. Iraq's oil sales before the war were controlled by the United Nations under its oil-for-food program. "We're moving into a legal realm that is not clear," said Jan Randolph, head of economic forecasting at the World Markets Research Center in London. "The impression we're getting is that because the Americans are largely bearing the [war] costs, they will want to determine what happens next." (end of excerpts)   - Or, it’s my ball, and we are going to play my way.  So gear up for UN battle phase 2, only this time without Tony Blair.  All of which will give credence to everyone who suspected motives in the first place and inflame tensions in the ME, endangering Israel and us. - KWC