Arken

Okay, please show me at what point those ceased to be stated priorities.

John Hancock

The actual priorities America's objectives in Iraq

It would be foolish to neglect the most obvious US objective in Iraq, which is to secure access to her oil reserves. This is clearly a vital issue for the Bush administration as sanctions had dramatically restricted her supply of oil onto the world markets. Despite the Saudi regime showing no sign of reversing its current trend of slavish subservience to the West, why is Washington suddenly so keen to diversify her choice of suppliers? Having secured highly lucrative rights to Saudi oil after the fist gulf War, the Clinton administration contented itself with building and developing this relationship. However, the irrepressible rise of political Islam around the world, and in the Middle East in particular is causing great concern in the Washington, prompting her to become increasingly paranoid about the potential of her political vulnerability given her current dependence on Saudi oil. To reduce her vulnerability, she must maker her pool of resources as diverse as possible.
http://www.khilafah.com/home/categor...=6777&TagID=24
White folk version
Baker panel recommends plans for post-Saddam Iraq
.................................................. .........................


“The United States may lose the peace, even if it wins the war,” unless the Bush administration lays out plans now for how to best reconstruct and govern Iraq post-Saddam Hussein, warns a panel of experts. Led by two distinguished diplomats, Ambassadors Edward Djerejian, director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, and Frank Wisner, vice chairman of external affairs at American International Group, the panel calls for the appointment of a “coordinator for Iraq” to oversee and articulate a three-phased strategy in the areas of security, economics and governance.


In the first systematic and comprehensive effort to outline guiding principles and priorities in the post-war environment, an independent panel sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Baker Institute have prepared an “intellectual road map” to help the Bush administration promote reconstruction and reconciliation in Iraq and build a more stable Middle East in the days and the decade after war. The report makes clear that although considerable resources are available, Iraq’s oil revenues will not be enough to provide for the many tasks required to stabilize and rebuild Iraq.


The panel asserts that U.S. efforts must be accompanied by a vigorous public diplomacy campaign in the Middle East and the Muslim world to deflate criticism in the region and deny terrorists and extremists the ability to use military action to their own political advantage.


Key tasks and objectives the memo considers include security, governance and economics:


Security: Immediately after the conclusion of hostilities, a strong American presence will be needed to establish and maintain law and order to ensure that anarchy, revenge and score-settling do not overwhelm the opportunities for lasting political change. As soon as possible, the United States must pivot from a leading role to a “superintending” one, recognizing that the Iraqi people will be a liberated, not a defeated people.


Early efforts must focus on eliminating the Republican Guard, the Special Republican Guard, intelligence services and other key institutions of Saddam’s rule, while preserving the Iraqi Army — minus the uppermost leadership and any others guilty of serious crimes. Iraqi leaders whose crimes are so egregious that they can be tried for crimes against humanity must be detained and prosecuted.


Governance: The report endorses a federal and democratic Iraq with Iraqis playing the leading role. The United States must make clear that it has no desire to become the defacto ruler of Iraq and its vast oil reserves. The report recommends a phased transition from an immediate “emergency transitional government with Iraqi advisers” to an “internationally and U.N.-supervised Iraqi government” and finally to a “sovereign Iraqi government.”


The report cautions the administration to resist the temptation to establish a provisional government in advance of hostilities or to impose a post-conflict government dominated by exiled Iraqi opposition leaders. The external opposition has a role to play, the report contends, but it should be considered an important voice among many.


Economics: Although Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, the Iraqi oil industry is being held together by “Band-Aids.” Oil production capacity in Iraq is dropping by 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) annually. Significant technical challenges exist to stanching the decline and eventually increasing production. The report concludes that it will take 18 months to three years and $5 billion to bring the Iraqi oil industry back to pre-1990s production levels of 3.5 million bpd, in addition to $3 billion in annual operating costs. To get to the oft-quoted 6 million bpd will take years and require massive expansion of infrastructure, billions of dollars in investment and a stable political environment. War and its aftermath could further limit, not increase, Iraq’s oil production.
http://www.rice.edu/projects/reno/rn...tconflict.html

Words from the head rat.
23 July 2003
Bush Says Hussein's Regime Is Gone, Iraq's Future Is Progressing
Says Bremer has outlined plan to accelerate Iraq's recovery
President Bush says the deaths of Saddam Hussein's sons should signal to the Iraqi people and the rest of the Middle East that Hussein's regime is gone, and that the coalition that fought to remove the regime is determined to help the Iraqi people recover from decades of tyranny.
"Yesterday, in the city of Mosul, the careers of two of the regime's chief henchmen came to an end," Bush said July 23 during a briefing at the White House. "Saddam Hussein's sons were responsible for torture, maiming and murder of countless Iraqis. Now, more than ever, all Iraqis can know that
the former regime is gone and will not be coming back."
Troopers from the 101st Airborne Division, acting on a tip from an Iraqi, killed Qusay and Uday Hussein and two others July 22 during a four-hour fire fight at a mansion in northeastern Mosul, which is northwest of Baghdad. Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez of the U.S. Central Command in Baghdad confirmed the earlier reports during an extended briefing July 23.
Bush said that with the regime of Saddam Hussein gone forever, "a few remaining holdouts are trying to prevent the advance of order and freedom. They are targeting our success in rebuilding Iraq. They're killing new police graduates. They're shooting at people who are guarding the universities, power plants and oil facilities."
Bush said the Coalition Provisional Authority, led by Ambassador Paul Bremer, has begun implementing a comprehensive strategy to rebuild Iraq, making it secure and prosperous.
"We're carrying out that strategy for the good of Iraq, for the peace of the region and for the security of the United States and our friends," he said.
Also present at the briefing, which was held in the Rose Garden adjacent to the White House's West Wing, were Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; Air Force General Richard Myers, who is chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Bremer. Bremer was in Washington for consultations with the president and also gave private briefings to members of Congress. Later he was expected to give a luncheon speech at the National Press Club and a briefing at the Washington Foreign Press Center.
Bush praised Bremer and the work his staff was doing in Iraq, saying "this morning Ambassador Bremer briefed me on our strategy to accelerate progress toward our goal. He outlined a comprehensive plan for action, for bringing greater security, essential services, economic development and democracy to the Iraqi people. The plan sets out ambitious timetables and clear benchmarks to measure progress and practical methods for achieving results." http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/di...wf-latest.html

John Hancock
__________________
"Fascism,should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini

Arken

All very interesting, Mr. Hancock, but nowhere in there do you show that obtaining information about terrorists and weapons of mass destruction is no longer a stated goal of this administration and the military.

Calzaer

One word:

Flashbangs

And for crying out loud... 4 people surrounded by 200 specially-trained members of the best-equipped army in the world, and it took us 4 hours just to KILL them? Right. They ARE alive and being tortured in custody. The dead bodies aren't even remotely realistic... and that might be somehow connected to the military refusing to let journalists take pictures while they were being carted out of the building. Only OFFICIAL photographs count, right? Right.

Morat

A few points:

1) The order to kill them, rather than capture them, came from Donald Rumsfeld or higher. Cheney or Bush, perhaps. No lower in the food chain. It's not like this was a target of opportunity.

Finding the #2 and #3 people on our list of priorties in Iraq is the sort of shit you wake a President up for. Even in this administration.

The decision was made to that capturing them was not a priority, and thus to kill them.

If we wanted to capture them, we could have surrounded the place, locked it down, and Noriega'd them out. We could have tossed in tear gas or other non-lethal methods.

We certainly wouldn't have sent the 101st up the damn stairs, or fired TOW-missiles and such.

It's pretty clear: We didn't want them alive.

The question is: Why not?

Darwin26

...Americas most Wanted ... on every screen in all its splendor and gore... Parading of the fresh road kills on TV was just such an insult to me. i believe this scenario was maybe planned but at the very least Chenney and Rummy thought it a good "look" for the bastions of buffoonery" A Desperate playing card *screening the dead enemy* typical Scumbag Repug mentality ...

These soldiers were under a command and the command was told what the Commander and Chief wanted to see... as the events unfolded... No i don't fault the soldiers the buck stops with the derelict War Mongers.

The Brothers Hussein should have been taken alive...ie captured like all the rest... But Nooooooooo the brand of democracy the Bush Admin is exporting is not about a separation of branches but how to be judge jury and EXECUTIONer wherever it will maybe help the cause for re-election.


Was it worth a soldiers life ? Jesis F---ing christ ... in Viet Nam a stupid piece of high ground was worth it... Noriega was worth it ... When in the name of military consciousness did that interrogative come up ... only if it would look good not to on someone's resume...

Was the rescue of Jessica worth it... ? all for publicity and someone's resume.
The slant and question about who's trained to "police" and how bears merit ... the whole deck of *cards* and the word 'capture' means that this is a legit process to be employed if at all possible.
When you have a chance to bring in an Opposing commander you manage to do that not rein in the ordinace from hell to obliterate them ...

Lamma, you can make up a perky little senario but it appears you want to dismiss the rights of the accused and the need for civilization to stand up for the Equal Rights of all ... Going to bat for "due process" is patriotic .

hinduwoman

$0.2 from an Indian columnist.

He is absolutely delighted by the killings. For years US Human rights commission, and US adminstration had lambasted Indian army for using excessive force in Kashmir. No matter what the militants are doing, so much bloody response is not right. The terrorists irrespective of soldiers' lives should be captured and put on trial instead of being shot.
Now that USA is in a tight spot the moral rules they have bragged of before is rewritten.
The sons are not captured. Instead overwhelkming attack from the very first and everyone with them including a 14 year old (killing of armed teenagers had been always pointed out as proof of Indian atrocity which justifies militancy in Kashmir and help from Pakistan) is shot dead.

Hopefully thismeans Indian govt. will not have to hear righteous sermons any more.

B. H. Manners

I have a friend that took some bullets going to get him and he does not think so.

The SwampThing

I was under the impression those troops didn´t know who was inside that house!
Acording to the media, wich interviewed the local commander, they only knew who it was, after they were dead.
And if they didn´t know, there is no way they would wait for Rummy to give the order.
In all fairness (even to this administration), i don´t think they would waste such a good oportunity to justify their claim on WMDs, just out of spite.
They did not know who they were dealing with, period.

I still don´t think those were Saddam´s sons, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.
As for the capturing them alive, i think it would be faily easy to do so, if they wanted to.
A few flashbangs, with a few tear gas grenades would settle the matter pretty easely.
The thing is, they wanted to give out a message to all the other iraqis bearing arms, that they would be dealt with, swifftly and harshly.
Firing loads of chopper rockets, .50 caliber guns, and 10 TOW missiles, wasn´t exactly what you´d call a low profile operation, was it? And expensive too!!
And after all that shooting, they still had to resort to the good old assault rifle and some in-site scouting...
Could they have done better?
Hell yes!!!
Could they capture them alive?
You can bet your ass they could!!!
Did they want to get them alive?
Not in a million years!!
You don´t fire that amount of firepower at a target, and expect anyone to still be breathing after...

All in all, it was a real ragtag operation.

Arken

Except that they were acting on a tipoff from a guy who's now getting $30 million for showing where they were... so even if they didn't know for certain, they had a pretty good idea.