Keith,
Of your conclusions, I would say "not a chance". Maybe, I should say "not
on your Nelly".
If Bush is defeated next year, it will bear a greater resemblance to
Churchill's dismissal after the war than some kind of defeated
warmonger.
While attention is focused on the noisy demonstrations in London, the
latest poll of Brits showed 47% for Blair and 41%
against.
If Bush is replaced next year, the next President will be in exactly the
same position and will need to keep things going in Iraq to a modestly
successful conclusion - however long that may take.
Harry
********************************************
Henry George School of Social Science
of Los Angeles
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net
********************************************
Henry George School of Social Science
of Los Angeles
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net
********************************************
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 7:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Futurework] Bad news hastens Bush to an exit-strategy in Iraq
Ever since Paul Hamer, the US Civilian Administrator in
Baghdad, was recalled to Washington yesterday for talks -- so urgently that he
had to cancel an appointment with the Polish Prime Minister (an insult of the
first water that risks the removal of the Polish troops from Iraq) -- it is
already clear to almost all commentators in the media that this means that
Bush's democracy-strategy (?) has now changed to an exit-strategy.
What no-one has cottoned onto yet is why Hamer was recalled exactly when he was. The suicide bombing in Nasiriya in southern Iraq causing the deaths of at least 17 Italian soldiers occurred after Hamer had left and thus had no connection with it. In my view, Hamer was recalled because Bush Senior and Henry Kissinger (Nixon's former Secretary of State and probably the most experienced and able "fixer" in the world) had come back from St Petersburg and Moscow with bad news. In St Petersburg, although they were supposed to be there on a private visit, Bush Senior and Kissinger would have been able to talk to the chiefs of all the Russian oil corporations who happened to be meeting there for their own domestic purposes due to Khodorovsky's arrest, together with those western oil companies who have an interest in Russia (and Iraq).
When Bush Junior and Cheney invaded Iraq they had one clear and immediate objective in their mind. This was to establish control of the oilfields of Iraq, kick out the Russian, French and Chinese oil corporations temporarily, and to ensure that US and UK oil corporations -- hitherto excluded by Saddam -- would have a chance of immediate development . (To be helpful, Bush ensured that the Oil Ministry in Baghdad was the only government office that was not bombed in the invasion blitz.)
Why this objective? Firstly, so that America would be guaranteed more oil supplies in future years if (and almost certainly when) Saudi Arabia erupts in internal revolution of some sort; secondly, so that Bush can say to the Iraqian people: "Saddam was not giving you what was rightfully yours -- the fruits of your immense oilfields -- we are going to develop them quickly so you can benefit from our initiative." In this way, Bush might have been able to keep the peace in Iraq for a few years while a constitution was formulated and elections held.
But then the US and UK oil corporation didn't play ball. They refused to take advantage of the situation because they were rightfully afraid that a future court of law would say that their activities would have been illegal because there was no lawful government in Iraq at the time.
Ah! But what about LUKoil, the Russian oil corporation that was about to start development of the huge Qurna oil field in northern Iraq. It had stopped activity previously because it refused to disobey UN sanctions. Two weeks ago it said that, in principle, they would certainly like to continue with their original contract.
That is what Bush Senior and Kissinger were in St Peterburg for. Would LUKoil be prepared to recommence development?
I think that LUKoil said No. Like the US and UK oil corporations, they are not going to develop the oilfields under the jurisdiction of the Coalition Provisional Authority because it is not the legal government of Iraq.
That's why Bush Junior recalled Hamer to Washington as soon as he heard the bad news. Bush now has no way of carrying out either of his original plans -- oil production, or of any development of a workable constitution and the holding of elections. And public opinion in America is now turning against him powerfully. He's either got to push his hand-picked Governing Council a lot harder in order to produce a constitution in double-quick time -- and they've resisted him so far -- or he's got to appoint a Provisional Government over the heads of the Governing Council in the hope that it will be accepted and obeyed by the Iraqian people and in due course proceed to elections and ambassadorial acceptability. There's no chance of that. He could cause a civil war. How can he possibly reconcile the separate interests of the Sunnis, the Shias and the Kurds, not to mention the fact that Saddam is still free and may yet well rise to the top again in any sort of civil war situation.
In my view, the only possible solution for Iraq now is for Bush to be even more aggressive (albeit constructive for the first time) than he has been hitherto (not that I am condoning what he has already done) and that is to divide the country into three parts in just the same way as the Ottoman Empire administered it -- the Kurds with a capital in Mosul, the Sunnis in the west with a capital in Baghdad, and the Shias in the south with a capital in Basra. They could each devise their own constitutions separately. Bush could hand suitably demarcated territories over to them with one proviso (of interest only to the Kurds and the Shias) -- that there is a free market in the allocation of development and production contracts with the oil corporations.
But Bush has already made his biggest mistake by invading Iraq in the first place. He no longer has the international credibility to be able to do this, nor would he have enough troops, nor would the American public let him try another adventure.
To all intents and purposes, Bush's game is now up. His only strategy now is to exit Iraq as quickly possible and hope that bloodbaths don't occur too soon. And then he will either suffer increasing disgrace and humiliation in the coming year before being defeated in the presidential election or, if there are further terrorist incidents similar in consequence to those that have already destroyed the UN and Red Cross headquarters in Baghdad, then he is likely to be impeached -- as 'they' almost did for Nixon -- on the grounds of mental incompetence, and a caretaker president installed. Not Cheney, of course, because he is implicated as much as, if not more than, Bush, but the Leader of the Congress as I understand the American constitution.
Keith Hudson
What no-one has cottoned onto yet is why Hamer was recalled exactly when he was. The suicide bombing in Nasiriya in southern Iraq causing the deaths of at least 17 Italian soldiers occurred after Hamer had left and thus had no connection with it. In my view, Hamer was recalled because Bush Senior and Henry Kissinger (Nixon's former Secretary of State and probably the most experienced and able "fixer" in the world) had come back from St Petersburg and Moscow with bad news. In St Petersburg, although they were supposed to be there on a private visit, Bush Senior and Kissinger would have been able to talk to the chiefs of all the Russian oil corporations who happened to be meeting there for their own domestic purposes due to Khodorovsky's arrest, together with those western oil companies who have an interest in Russia (and Iraq).
When Bush Junior and Cheney invaded Iraq they had one clear and immediate objective in their mind. This was to establish control of the oilfields of Iraq, kick out the Russian, French and Chinese oil corporations temporarily, and to ensure that US and UK oil corporations -- hitherto excluded by Saddam -- would have a chance of immediate development . (To be helpful, Bush ensured that the Oil Ministry in Baghdad was the only government office that was not bombed in the invasion blitz.)
Why this objective? Firstly, so that America would be guaranteed more oil supplies in future years if (and almost certainly when) Saudi Arabia erupts in internal revolution of some sort; secondly, so that Bush can say to the Iraqian people: "Saddam was not giving you what was rightfully yours -- the fruits of your immense oilfields -- we are going to develop them quickly so you can benefit from our initiative." In this way, Bush might have been able to keep the peace in Iraq for a few years while a constitution was formulated and elections held.
But then the US and UK oil corporation didn't play ball. They refused to take advantage of the situation because they were rightfully afraid that a future court of law would say that their activities would have been illegal because there was no lawful government in Iraq at the time.
Ah! But what about LUKoil, the Russian oil corporation that was about to start development of the huge Qurna oil field in northern Iraq. It had stopped activity previously because it refused to disobey UN sanctions. Two weeks ago it said that, in principle, they would certainly like to continue with their original contract.
That is what Bush Senior and Kissinger were in St Peterburg for. Would LUKoil be prepared to recommence development?
I think that LUKoil said No. Like the US and UK oil corporations, they are not going to develop the oilfields under the jurisdiction of the Coalition Provisional Authority because it is not the legal government of Iraq.
That's why Bush Junior recalled Hamer to Washington as soon as he heard the bad news. Bush now has no way of carrying out either of his original plans -- oil production, or of any development of a workable constitution and the holding of elections. And public opinion in America is now turning against him powerfully. He's either got to push his hand-picked Governing Council a lot harder in order to produce a constitution in double-quick time -- and they've resisted him so far -- or he's got to appoint a Provisional Government over the heads of the Governing Council in the hope that it will be accepted and obeyed by the Iraqian people and in due course proceed to elections and ambassadorial acceptability. There's no chance of that. He could cause a civil war. How can he possibly reconcile the separate interests of the Sunnis, the Shias and the Kurds, not to mention the fact that Saddam is still free and may yet well rise to the top again in any sort of civil war situation.
In my view, the only possible solution for Iraq now is for Bush to be even more aggressive (albeit constructive for the first time) than he has been hitherto (not that I am condoning what he has already done) and that is to divide the country into three parts in just the same way as the Ottoman Empire administered it -- the Kurds with a capital in Mosul, the Sunnis in the west with a capital in Baghdad, and the Shias in the south with a capital in Basra. They could each devise their own constitutions separately. Bush could hand suitably demarcated territories over to them with one proviso (of interest only to the Kurds and the Shias) -- that there is a free market in the allocation of development and production contracts with the oil corporations.
But Bush has already made his biggest mistake by invading Iraq in the first place. He no longer has the international credibility to be able to do this, nor would he have enough troops, nor would the American public let him try another adventure.
To all intents and purposes, Bush's game is now up. His only strategy now is to exit Iraq as quickly possible and hope that bloodbaths don't occur too soon. And then he will either suffer increasing disgrace and humiliation in the coming year before being defeated in the presidential election or, if there are further terrorist incidents similar in consequence to those that have already destroyed the UN and Red Cross headquarters in Baghdad, then he is likely to be impeached -- as 'they' almost did for Nixon -- on the grounds of mental incompetence, and a caretaker president installed. Not Cheney, of course, because he is implicated as much as, if not more than, Bush, but the Leader of the Congress as I understand the American constitution.
Keith Hudson
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003
