An old New York Times article I unearthed from earlier this year provides discouraging details of the Bush administration’s plans for Iraq after the war.
1) The US government appears to recognise the need to avoid installing a governor but expects there to be a military commander and a “civilian administrator” running things jointly and, “it is not clear whether that administrator will be an American, or if the United Nations would take the lead in that part of the operation.” If the latter is an American surely it would be very difficult to pretend he is not just a puppet?
2) “Government elements closely identified with Saddam’s regime, such as the revolutionary courts, or the special security organization, will be eliminated, but much of the rest of the government will be reformed and kept.” Reminds me uncomfortably of the situation after WWII where ex-Nazis were allowed to retain power – though this time around at least “within the State Department, there is discussion of some kind of “truth and reconciliation” process, modeled after the one in South Africa, that could publicly shame, but not necessarily punish, human rights violators.”
3) Most worrying from my POV is that a priority will be to “keep the country whole.” But is the country a natural whole? Or is this just expediency to serve the interests of the US neighboring powers?movies fu kungmovie lesbian straponmature lesbian moviesmovie mp3 themesmovies nude freeforum porn moviemovies scuba diving quicktimemovie sex previews Map
