So...How Long before we "Fix" Iraq with a Military Dictatorship...

[Junkdrawer]

Back in June, I posted this:

NOTE: The following is just a guess based on many, many events that seem to suggest it as a possible BushCo strategy. It is extremely brutal and I hope I'm wrong.

Pretend that you have absolutely no morals whatsoever and that your goal is to capture and exploit the world’s largest underexploited oil reserves - Iraq. You don’t want to start the pumping while your Saudi business partners still can meet demand, so let’s say your time frame to start pumping is 5 to 10 years out. Your problems are:

1.) The population of the country is 65%+ Shia, many with links to Iran and many more decidedly Anti-American.
2.) Immediate installation of a Pro-American puppet regime would be opposed, not only by Iraqis, but also by most of the world, especially Iran, Russia and China.
3.) Oil fields and pipelines are easy sabotage targets for any well-manned insurgency.

So invading with a sufficient force to bring post-invasion stability brings a Shiite regime with a pro-Iranian tilt. Joy, just what you don’t want. So what do you do? Try this little three phase plan:

Phase I:
Invade with a force sufficient to overcome Saddam’s weakened defenses, but insufficient to create stability. Leave plenty of weapon caches lying about because you want an insurgency. Why? Because an insurgency provides cover for:
1.) The expulsion of the U.N.
2.) The expulsion of unfriendly media
3.) The building of permanent military bases
The insurgency also creates the core of a brutal, professional colonial army – something you’ll need for Phase III.

Phase II:
Instigate a civil war and then retreat to the bases you built in Phase I. You can, at this point, talk about an “orderly withdrawal” because you really just need a small core of provocateurs to keep the civil war raging. This is when the real killings occur – the pacification if you will. The idea is to reduce the population of anyone who will oppose your later occupation. The magnitude of the killings during this phase will be so severe that there will actually be cries for your return, both at home and within the international community. See Bosnia.

Phase III:
Remember those military bases and the brutal, professional colonial army you built during Phase I? Now is when you use them to bring about your actual goal: a puppet government propped up by a brutal military presence. You can refer anyone who complains at this point to the atrocities of Phase II and suggest that your forced stability is the lesser of two evils. Oh, by the way, you can pump the oil now.

Well, there you have it. As I said, I hope I’m wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1503947

So, we've made it to Phase II. Phase III, in my scenario, is that we install a strong man as "the lesser of two evils." I'm hearing that a few "pundits" are already floating the idea...

[Missy M]

1. To replace the one we just removed. How ironic.

[TahitiNut]

2. He bit the hand that fed him and gave him his job in the first place.

Time for a new pet dog.

[Bucky]

3. I don't see the main character of your phase two happening just yet

"You can, at this point, talk about an “orderly withdrawal” because you really just need a small core of provocateurs to keep the civil war raging. This is when the real killings occur – the pacification if you will. The idea is to reduce the population of anyone who will oppose your later occupation. The magnitude of the killings during this phase will be so severe that there will actually be cries for your return, both at home and within the international community."

They're not ever going to start calling for the US to return. If they reach out to any outside forces, it'll be Iran. For that matter, the Baker study group is probably going to call for regional stabilization talks that will include Iran pushing the Sadrists and Shia and government forces to cooperate, Syria pushing the Baathist and Sunni groups, Saudi Arabia pushing the Wahabists who aren't outright al-Qaeda bandits, and the US pressuring the Kurdish groups all to come to the table and work out a real cease fire.

I seriously doubt that, at the current rate of few thousand a month you're ever going to kill off adequate numbers to say you've "neutralized" the anti-occupation forces. Rather, such a high death rate is radicalizing the population to be against any occupation--including by fellow Iraqis. The real de-peopling of Iraq is from the emigration of the professional and entrepreneur classes (they've been losing close to 100,000 per month by out-migration lately). I think we'll probably end up seeing 1919-style ethnic removals just in order to pacify the sectarian violence, altho nothing will completely "end" it within a generation.

[Junkdrawer]

4. Your right, but Bush has a way of "hearing his mother calling"...

which is to say that Bush, assisted by the US media, will claim that the international community is looking to us to fix Iraq.

As for allowing Iran to stabilize Iraq, hell, they could have had that result the day after our invasion. Now, Iran will have to figure into this because they are the region's power brokers. Either we have to confront Iran (read WW III) or we have to cut a deal.

[sarge43]

5. You mean someone like Saddam Hussein? n/t

[Ms. Clio]

6. Either that, or partition

bookmarking for future reference!

[Junkdrawer]

7. .

[conscious evolution]

8. Damn good analysis.

So they did have a plan,huh?

[Junkdrawer]

9. Bush will be the "idealist" fall guy...

"Despite the idealism of former President Bush, Iraq is clearly not ready for a democracy..."

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

[Junkdrawer]

10. "Vehicles Used In Iraq Car Bombings Were Stolen In The US"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2840464&mesg_id=2840464

Interesting....