[Futurework] Post-dogwalk speculations

[Keith Hudson]

During my dogwalk this morning I was reading the words of William Kristol, who surely ought to be as close a friend of Bush as any:

<<<<
One reason for this is that the civil war in the Bush administration has become crippling. The CIA is in open revolt against the White House. The State Department and the Defense Department aren't working together at all. We are way beyond 'fruitful tension'. (See FT article below)
>>>>

and came to a tentative conclusion that the Bush team is now in complete disarray and that American occupation of Iraq can't last for much longer as demoralisation diffuses down the army hierarchy.

After my dogwalk while cooking eggs and bacon I heard on the radio that the Spanish envoy and eight Iraqis were blown up by a suicide bomber and then, to emphasise the point being made (by Saddam no doubt), a Spanish air force sergeant attached to the embassy was gunned down as he left his home.

Yesterday Bush withdrew his Resolution to the UN Security Council that it wouldn't accept. Sooner or later, Bush will have to produce a resolution that the UN Security Council will accept. And that will mean that the American-British Coalition occupation will end and a UN supervised occupation will start instead.

It will also confirm Bush as a one-term President. But it will also mean the end of partial electricity and water supplies in Baghdad after six months of the occupation, the restoration of a sewage system, a rapid reduction in the 80% male unemployment, a resumption of oil exports and also that women can go out in the streets in the evenings in safety again as they used to.

But I almost forgot! While the UN forces are sorting themselves out, there's likely to be a bloodbath as the Shias sort out the Sunni clerics and followers once and for all. The UN are just as likely to stand around and let it happen as they did in Bosnia when the Serbians massacred 7,000 Moslem men and boys. (The UN will never have any real validity until it has an independent military force -- as was originally contemplated in its original constitution.)

And then, we might possibly see the emergence of Saddam Hussein at the head of an insurrection of tribal chiefs as a last ditch attempt at regaining power. But I think that the Kurds and the Shias would soon stamp that out between them, and get rid of Saddam once and for all. After then we might possibly see the beginning of a real solution -- a Kurdish Iraq and a Shiite Iraq. This, I think is the most likely practical scenario of them all, and it might just possibly happen.
 
After then we may begin to see "the end of partial electrity and water supplies ........... etc."

Oh, and another thing I forgot! We might also see a possible mutiny of American troops at almost any stage from now onwards when they refuse to go out on patrol except in tanks.

Keith Hudson

<<<<
SHAKE-UP REVEALS WHITE HOUSE RIFT
Guy Dinmore

Washington:
The Bush administration's shake-up of its policymaking structure for Iraq yesterday exposed, rather than resolved, inter-agency differences, as the White House admitted that Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, had not consulted Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, over the reorganisation.

Mr Rumsfeld said on Tuesday he had not learned of the Iraq Stabilisation Group, a new co-ordinating body headed by Ms Rice, until he received a classified memo from her. He said he had not been briefed beforehand. This followed an assertion by Ms Rice in the New York Times that she had devised the new group together with Vice-President Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, the secretary of state, and Mr Rumsfeld.

On Monday the White House was behind Ms Rice. Scott McClellan, White House spokesman, said Mr Rumsfeld had been "very involved in this process". But yesterday Mr McClellan retracted his remarks. "Maybe I should not have characterised it that way," he told reporters. But he insisted that Paul Bremer, the US administrator for the occupying powers in Iraq who reports to Mr Rumsfeld, had been consulted.

The confusion reflected what commentators have called a "civil war" within the Bush administration. The paralysing disputes have worsened along with deteriorating security in Iraq. William Kristol, a neo- conservative ideologue and publisher, wrote in the latest edition of his Weekly Standard magazine that the Bush administration had been virtually "invisible" in making its case to Congress and the American people for an extra $87bn (€74bn, £52bn) in spending on Iraq and Afghanistan.

"One reason for this is that the civil war in the Bush administration has become crippling," he wrote. "The CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] is in open revolt against the White House. The State Department and the Defense Department aren't working together at all. We are way beyond 'fruitful tension'."
Financial Times; Oct 09, 2003
>>>>


Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>, <www.handlo.com>, <www.property-portraits.co.uk>