More memos: Brits backed Sunni-led Iraq (wanted "military strongman,")

[truthpusher]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usbrit0623,0,2433173.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

More memos: Brits backed Sunni-led Iraq
----------------------
BY KNUT ROYCE
SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
---------------------
June 23, 2005
---------------------
WASHINGTON --

(snip)

One of the so-called Downing Street documents, secret internal British memos stirring controversy on both sides of the Atlantic, drafted March 8, 2002, recommended two possibilities for a post-Saddam Hussein government -- one run by a benevolent "Sunni military strongman," and the second, which it clearly preferred, for a "representative, broadly democratic government ... Sunni-led but within a federal structure."

The election process dictated by the United States resulted in the Shias, who represent 60 percent of the population, assuming a dominant role in the executive and legislative branches, as well as in drafting a new constitution.

(snip)

"What sort of Iraq we want?" the British documents asked rhetorically. The first possibility, it said, involved a "Sunni military strongman" who, in return for aid, would abandon weapons of mass destruction and respect human rights and ethnic minorities. But, the report noted, the arrangement could result in Iraq ending up in the hands of another Sunni dictator.

A second possibility, the paper asserted, could be a "representative, broadly democratic government would be Sunni-led but within a federal structure. The Kurds would be guaranteed autonomy and the Shias access to government. Such a regime would be less likely to develop WMD and threaten its neighbors. However, to survive, it would require the US and others to commit to nation building for many years."

complete story: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usbrit0623,0,2433173.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

[clydefrand]

1. Wolfowitz doesn't want to discuss what we want to discuss NOW!

Wolfowitz told reporters this week that he had not read the documents and declined to discuss them. "There will be a time and place to talk about history," he said, "but I really don't believe it's now."

I bet he hasn't read them. Too busy I guess licking his comb before a camera. Oh, yuck, he makes me sick.

[UpInArms]

10. Bush administration statements on WMDs

[Coexist]

14. do you mind if I ask for a link to that graphic?

Pretty please.

[UpInArms]

15. for you, anything!

http://www. oldamericancentury.org/carnegiegraph.gif

(you have to take out the space between the . and old)

and here's a great page of graphics

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/charts.htm

[ECH1969]

2. WTF

How can one have a "representative, broadly democratic government" controlled by Sunnis when Sunnis are only 20 percent of the population.

[moondust]

6. Minority rule, not democratic, led by an oil-friendly Saddam.

Saddam just couldn't be trusted with our Exxon's oil deposits. Otherwise he would have been just what the doctor ordered.

[wellst0nev0ter]

3. Wow. Do The Brits EVER Fucking Learn?

At least from their last foray into Eye-Rack in the 20's where they set up the Sunni caste society we all know and love today?

[IndianaGreen]

4. "What sort of Iraq we want?" This is what we will get....

We will get a Shia theocracy, heavily influenced by Iran, with a government and society that will be inherently misogynist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Western.

The Kurds will never get autonomy! Neither the Sunnis nor the Shias will allow Iraq to be partition by the Kurds. The Kurds, who have played the role of victim as well as the Israeli settlers have, have treated their fellow Iraqis rather badly in Northern Iraq. Not just Sunnis and Shias, but Turkmen, have seen their property expropriated and their families abused by Kurds motivated by revenge.

Turkey will never allow the Kurds to get full autonomy either! The Turks have their own Kurdish problem on their side of the border and they have never hesitated to send their army into Iraq to kill Kurdish nationalists.

The bottom line is that neither the US nor the old colonial power in Iraq, Britain, will win anything in Iraq other than more of their dead and wounded.

[1932]

17. But what is the solution?

Turkey doesn't want powerful Kurds on its border, and Iran doesn't want powerful Sunnis on its border, but Iraq is a country of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis.

The reason Hussein held them together was because he brutalized them. You obviously can't have a government that keeps order by repression. But if you break Iraq into three weak countries or one where Sunnis dominate, you almost guarantee conflict with Iraq, and if Kurds are completely autonomous, but poor and powerless, in the north, you probably guarantee conflict with Turkey.

So, the second British plan seems to make sense -- a federal government that dictates national policy, but gives Shiites and Kurds significant (but not total) autonomy in, respectively, the south and the north.

Interestingly, this conforms to what the British did immediately on securing Basra. They found that Iran had secretly done a great deal of work over the previous ten years making sure there were Shiites ready to step in and take the place of Hussein's brutal regime. The British imediately turned over political control of Basra to these Iraqi shiites (which angered the US immensely).

In terms of coming up with solutions that work, I think you have to give the British credit. A strong central federal government which gives regional autonomy to the Kurds and the Shiites is probably the only way forward. Also, you can't underestimate the importance of turning over the country to Iraqis so that they can develop the economy to the point that the middle class wealth (and trade with its neighbors) that it creates will be the best way to ensure regional stability.

[Bridget Burke]

20. Yes, the Brits have a long history of setting up other people's government

Some still haven't realized that the sun has set on the Empire.

[1932]

23. Reduc'g poverty in Africa & turn'g over political control to Iraq in Basra

and also subjecting Pinochet to extradition to Spain:

Some things the British are doing at least deserve some more thoughtful reflection on whether they're trying to continue empire or transition out of it. Labour might not be doing the 180 degree opposite of what the the Tories did during the Thatcher-Reagan years, but what they're doing might make it impossible for any future Thatcherites to do again what the used to do.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Neither Britain nor the US should dictate terms to Iraq on its future

We have no more business telling Iraqis how to solve their problems than the Germans and the Japanese had in the countries they took by force in the 1930s and 1940s.

The only role we have to play in Iraq is to bring all of our troops home, immediately and unconditionally. We must pay reparations to Iraq for the vast destruction we brought to that country and we must pay compensation to the families for their losses. In terms of justice, we must prosecute and punish all the civilian and military officials in the US government that conspired to bring this war about. We must also punish all those found guilty of war crimes, from the lowest private to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[OKNancy]

5. Kick

:kick:

[stickdog]

7. Memo: British wanted Sunnis to lead (DSM)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002345146_brits23.html

Memo: British wanted Sunnis to lead

By Knut Royce

WASHINGTON — The British government, in sharp disagreement with the United States' position, thought post-invasion Iraq should be run by a Sunni-led government and not one controlled by the majority Shiites.

One of the so-called Downing Street documents — secret internal British memos drafted March 8, 2002 — recommended two possibilities for a post-Saddam Hussein government: One run by a benevolent "Sunni military strongman," and the second, which it clearly preferred, for a "representative, broadly democratic government ... Sunni-led but within a federal structure."

The United States opted for countrywide elections that gave the Shiites, who represent 60 percent of the nation, dominance in the executive and legislative branches, as well as in the drafting of a new constitution. The current insurgency is led by disaffected Sunnis, who account for 20 percent of the Iraqi population but controlled the government under Saddam.

Iraq's Arab neighbors have virtually boycotted the new government, with only Egypt announcing yesterday that it would send an ambassador to Baghdad. U.S. officials think the reason is unease with the Shiite leaders.


more ...

[Charles19]

8. That goes against neo-con policy

which is to have Iraq occupied forever.

The U.S. can't sell the solution for Iraq if their are no problems. Shiites in control of the Sunni hardcores is a permanent problem that requires permanent occupation.

[1932]

18. The rumor was that US cut a deal with Iran to have shiite gov't.

Chalabi was working for Iran, and this is what he was pushing for. Iran thought the only way to prevent an Iran-Iraq war was through a Shiite-government. The US tried to accomodate by rigging an election that would produce those results.

[UpInArms]

9. "what sort of Iraq we want?"

Why we want one where we can make trillions in military contracts!



And how do we sell this crap to the people?

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/warpropaganda.bmp

[Bridget Burke]

11. Sorry, the Empire is OVER....

Most of the world knows this--but a few UK bureaucrats yearn for the old days.

[1932]

19. What about this plan, as opposed to the US plan

do you think furthers British empire?

And do you think it was better for the world to have Hussein's government in place?

[Bridget Burke]

21. Iraq is not better off without Hussein.

Of course, his downfall is no tragedy. If the US had left immediately thereafter, many Iraqis would have been glad. But the US is staying for geopolitical reasons. Their concern for Iraqi people is nonexistent.

Any country's "plan" for another country is imperialism.

And Hussein was not hurting anybody else in the world. No WMD's. That was the reason for the invasion, remember?

[Postman]

12. They wanted a Saddam who wasn't Saddam...

a dictator who they can control.

[renaissanceguy]

13. I'm surprised they didn't put Jeb in there.

:sarcasm:

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14744291

[Jacobin]

16. At least the Brits aren't geo-politically brain dead like the neocons

If majority rules in Iraq, its going to be a fundamentalist islamic state, much like Iran.

With apologies to Condi the Sunday School Teacher and her class of neo-con nitwits who think we are going to force some kind of Jeffersonian democracy on these warring factions. Sorry Condi, you are going to go down in history as a clueless, offensive, smart-assed dingbat who killed hundreds of thousands with your naivete' and other people's bravado.