You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
White House: U.S. Could Target Saddam
2003-02-26
Saddam Hussein is being threatened with trial as a war criminal if the United States goes to war with Iraq. If the Iraqi president and his generals "take innocent life, if they destroy infrastructure, they will be held accountable as war criminals," President Bush said Tuesday.
And since we've been calling you at home for the past 3 months telling you to not fight when we come in, that should be a pretty clear message that we know who you are and where you live.
The White House spokesman Ari Fleischer offered a grimmer scenario. Saddam and his inner circle would be legitimate targets for U.S. forces, he said.
"Grimmer" - Who's the editor at AP? is that a real word?
"If we go to war in Iraq, and hostilities result, command and control and top generals, people who are in charge of fighting the war to kill the United States' troops, cannot assume they will be safe," Fleischer said.
In fact, its best to remind yourself that you are the target this time. We're not after territory or oil here, we're after your ass.
"If you go to war, command and control are legitimate targets under international law," the spokesman said. Asked whether that could mean Saddam, Fleischer replied, "Of course."
Once again the White House Press Corps stupidity phasers are on on "stun"
A 1976 ban on assassinating foreign leaders was put into place by President Ford in response to criticism of CIA backed plots in the 1960s and 1970s. President Reagan extended the executive order in 1981 to include hired assassins. Bush could overturn the ban by signing a document, but Fleischer declined to say whether he is considering doing so.
No since tipping our hand. Now, the last thing lots of people think of before they go to sleep is "man, whats going to happen if the Americans decide to get back into the clandestine killing business?"
Bush plans a speech on Iraq late Wednesday at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank from which he drew many of his aides. He is expected to argue that Saddam is a menace to the Iraqi people and getting rid of him would make the Middle East more stable.
Once again, pointing out the obvious for those people who still dont get it.
Offering Congress and the American public a peek into war and postwar preparations, the Army's top general said Tuesday that a military occupying force could total several hundred thousand soldiers. Iraq is "a piece of geography that's fairly significant," Gen. Eric K. Shinseki said at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Any postwar occupying force, he said, would have to be big enough to maintain safety in a country with "ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems." Shinseki said he couldn't give specific numbers of the size of an occupation force but would rely on the recommendations of commanders in the region.
Those are plans that will be modified according to the ground realities. At this point they're overviews...
"How about a range?" asked Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the committee.
"Tell us what the future holds, oh Gypsy!"
"I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers," the general said. "Assistance from friends and allies would be helpful."
And hey since were over there, if we, say have to go into Syria or Iran (for example) we wont have to go through all that messy UN stuff to get permission to set up bases.
Afterward, Levin called Shinseki's estimate "very sobering."
It's nice to see Levin sober, I guess, but the answer's also pretty vague. It depends on what we want to do in the wake of Sammy falling, and it depends on how the occupation goes. Troops in Japan were drawn down fairly quickly under McArthur, and the large number of troops we maintained for years and years in Germany were in response to the Russians, not the Germans. But if Iraq gets swarmed by exploding Paleos in the wake of the war, or my screaming combat ayatollahs across the other border, or the Turks and Kurds fall upon each other with cudgels, then the numbers and missions may vary. And if we have to go into Soddy Arabia to, ahem, "restore order," then the figure's still different. I guess Levin will just have to have a drink and wait to see what happens.
In a speech prepared for Wednesday delivery to the Council on Foreign Relations, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., is calling on the Bush administration to work with the United Nations to name an international administrator to oversee reconstruction of Iraq.
Well, my ideal candidates would be Condoleeza Rice, Margaret Thatcher or Ann Coulter.
The UN could maybe run the whorehouses, I guess. They've got experience at that...
A U.S. civilian administrator "would put America in the position of an occupying power, not a liberator,"
How being viewed as a "liberator" is somehow bad is beyond my little peabrain.
says Lieberman, who is running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2004. "And it may well widen the gulf between the United States and the Arab world."
Gosh, we woundn't want to make them mad at us, they might commit acts of terror against us here at home (oops, too late!)
In northern Iraq, which was pried from Saddam's control to protect Kurdish civilians after the 1991 Persian Gulf war, White House and State Department officials were holding a meeting with political opponents of Saddam's government. Zalmay Khalilzad, of the National Security Council staff, and David Pearce, who is in charge of the Iraq desk at the State Department, were helping to plan the kind of government that would take over in Baghdad after an ouster of Saddam. The anti-Saddam Iraqis are a diverse group, with sometimes conflicting interests. Kurdish leaders, for example, are uneasy with U.S. plans to station troops in northern Iraq in the event of war.
Thought they said U.S. forces were welcome, just not the Turks?
To Iraq's north, Turkey fears that Iraqi Kurds would try to create their own state if Saddam was overthrown, encouraging secession by Turkey's own Kurdish minority. State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said the Bush administration supports the territorial integrity of Iraq — meaning it was opposed to the country's breakup — and multiethnic rule in Baghdad.
So now can we move on to the next problem?
Bush, meanwhile, predicted Saddam would try to "fool the world one more time," by disclosing some weapons that he had previously denied having. But the president insisted the only way the Iraqi leader could avoid war was "full disarmament. The man has been told to disarm. For the sake of peace, he must completely disarm." On Wednesday, continuing his talks with world leaders, Bush was due to meet with President Geidar Aliev of Azerbaijan, which is 250 miles northeast of Iraq and has backed the U.S. call for Iraq's disarmament.
Posted by:Frank Martin

#11  Dammit, I want to be Grand Mufti of Baghdad!

Havel is a mind blowing choice. And he's available soon.
Posted by: Chuck   2003-02-26 15:45:51  

#10   "I must've read that sentence a dozen times, but I think I filter anything suggesting UN competance right out of my head. I reject the good senators postion anyway."

The specialized arms of the UN are competent - WHO, FAO, World Food Program, etc. The UN is a failure as a POLITICAL body, for reasons to complex to go into here. The UN WILL be involved in post-war Iraq - the US DOD has already mentioned plans to have the UN World Food Program in on the ground very quickly. The question is can they help on the political side - they DO have experince AND competence with "nation building" see Cambodia, East Timor, etc. OTOH they could be handicapped the post war politics of Iraq, esp with France and Russia pushing their own interests against the Iraqi people. While I wouldnt rule out a suitable UN administrator, a "coalition of the willing"administrator not in UN employ, but not an American might he a better idea.

Doesnt Vaclav Havel need a job???
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-02-26 12:23:50  

#9  "would put America in the position of an occupying power, not a liberator. Typical liberal response. He want's to be a liberator, but doesn't grasp that means you'd actually have to actually liberate them first...or maybe he's ok with just being a "liberator" and then letting them fall into civil war afterwards. Either way shows typical liberal callousness towards the oppressed Iraqi people. "

Lieberman supports US intervention in Iraq (perhaps you are confusing him with Levin?) And he certainly recognizes a need for US troops to miantain order. The dispute is over the organization of the post war Iraqi admin.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-02-26 12:16:36  

#8  A U.S. civilian administrator "would put America in the position of an occupying power, not a liberator,"


I must've read that sentence a dozen times, but I think I filter anything suggesting UN competance right out of my head. I reject the good senators postion anyway.
Posted by: Frank Martin   2003-02-26 11:50:02  

#7  Havel would be perfect.
Posted by: Ptah   2003-02-26 21:16:00  

#6  Havel for administrator! Havel for administrator! Actually, I think Sen. Lieberman (who, let us not forget, is gung-ho for the war, no matter what else he's doing on the domestic political front) has a point. We're going to be in a tough political situation after the war because of all the crap the Weasels have been spreading around. I'd be very very careful, to say nothing more, of going to the UN for anything at all having to do with running Iraq (unless it's applying to a specialized arm for specific help, as liberalhawk says) but finding some non-US dignitary who is pro-Western and has a lot of prestige would be, at the least, an important symbolic plus - and symbols DO matter.
Posted by: Joe   2003-02-26 17:04:16  

#5  Yes, it's a real word. Germanic construction, but real. Grim, grimmer, grimmest.
Posted by: mojo   2003-02-26 10:26:48  

#4  "would put America in the position of an occupying power, not a liberator. Typical liberal response. He want's to be a liberator, but doesn't grasp that means you'd actually have to actually liberate them first...or maybe he's ok with just being a "liberator" and then letting them fall into civil war afterwards. Either way shows typical liberal callousness towards the oppressed Iraqi people.

As for Levin calling it "sobering" - was he drunk?
Posted by: becky   2003-02-26 10:03:19  

#3  A U.S. civilian administrator "would put America in the position of an occupying power, not a liberator,"

How being viewed as a "liberator" is somehow bad is beyond my little peabrain.

I think he was saying "occuping power = bad, liberator = good"
Posted by: VAMark   2003-02-26 09:17:41  

#2  "A U.S. civilian administrator "would put America in the position of an occupying power, not a liberator," How being viewed as a "liberator" is somehow bad is beyond my little peabrain."

try rereading Joe's statement. He is opposed to a US administrator BECAUSE he wants us to be viewed as a liberator.

And mentioning Thatcher is not a bad idea. It least it goes in the right direction - IE just because it might be a UN administrator doesnt mean we have to accept whoever they give us. If they give us the civil administration equivalent of Hans Blix we go back to plan B, a US administrator. A suitably hawkish Brit would be an excellent choice. Or an Aussie. How about Richard Butler?
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-02-26 09:05:37  

#1  Considering that Sadam has already targeted a U.S.Priesident then he has placed himself outside of the protections of U.S.and International law.

If the U.N.does not back-up the war then they have no right,reason,or excuse to be in post-Sadam-Iraq(screw-em).

????:I thought the Kurds wanted our troops there?
Posted by: raptor   2003-02-26 05:57:33  

00:00