Alarm in Europe at US plan
for general to govern Iraq
David Wastell,
Robert Fox and Julian Coman, The Telegraph
September 10, 2002
America's European allies are reacting with alarm at a plan being
prepared in Washington to install a United States general to govern a
newly liberated Iraq.
The proposal is an implicit acknowledgement that America's long-running
effort to identify an immediate and credible successor to Saddam among
the ranks of the Iraqi opposition has foundered.
Diplomats say that the suggestion, made by senior Bush administration
officials on Friday, has endangered frantic American and British efforts
to secure a United Nations Security Council resolution backing tough new
weapons inspections inside Iraq.
Under the plan, modelled on America's occupation of Japan after the
Second World War, a top American commander - possibly Gen Tommy Franks,
now in charge of US forces in the region - would assume the senior role
in a coalition-run regime.
The military regime's first task would be to find and destroy Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction. Only once this was achieved, after at least
a year, would power be passed to Iraq's opposition groups, who are
judged incapable of quickly forming a stable government.
France and Russia, two of the five permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council, are dragging their feet over US calls for
inspections to be backed up by the simultaneous threat of military
force, and many Nato members are also nervous.
One European official said: "If you're worried about military action and
you have concerns about American intentions, as some people do, then
this kind of suggestion is only going to increase your suspicion."
Iraqi dissidents and the Arab League expressed dismay at the prospect of
the country being run by a foreign power.
Hamid al-Bayati, a representative of the Supreme Council for Islamic
Revolution in Iraq, a Shiite-led opposition group, met US officials in
August. He said: "We were told that they want a broad-based Iraqi
government, with no direct American role."
The plan emanated from the Pentagon, where hardliners led by Donald
Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, want a quick invasion, assisted by
hoped-for mutinies within Iraqi military ranks.
Pentagon officials have been among those pushing hardest for the policy
of regime change espoused by President George W Bush earlier this year -
but now officially on the back burner because of British, European and
Russian sensitivities.
One London-based diplomat said: "Someone at the Pentagon has decided
it's a good time to leak this, without thinking that it does not go down
well elsewhere."
At a practical level, there are doubts over whether America has
sufficient service personnel required. The total strength of the US
armed forces is 1,414,000, with an army of 485,000, but of these only 15
per cent or less are deployable on operations overseas.
American planners calculate that a force of 75,000 US and allied troops
will be needed for the occupation, which could last up to 10 years.
Under the plans, a ground force of five armoured divisions and two
airborne and helicopter assault divisions will be used in the operation
to remove Saddam.
Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, flies to Washington this week to warn
America that it must prepare to back down on its demand for a single UN
resolution authorising new weapons inspections inside Iraq and military
force if they fail.
Mr Straw will tell Colin Powell, the secretary of state, that after a
month of diplomatic negotiations it is now unlikely that Russia and
France will agree to the American demand.
Instead British officials are pinning their hopes on a weaker option: a
first, strongly-worded resolution setting out the inspections regime and
making clear that some kind of consequence will follow if Iraq fails to
co-operate. A second resolution, explicitly authorising force, could
follow if necessary.
"We'd prefer a single resolution, but the most important thing is to
have a UN process," said one official. "We do not want to end up with no
UN resolution at all."
The Iraqi regime has dismayed the UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix,
and strengthened the hand of British and American diplomats by going
back on arrangements for a new round of inspections in Iraq which Mr
Blix thought had been agreed.
An Iraqi letter to the UN, which came to light yesterday, failed to
confirm details that Mr Blix thought had been nailed down at the end of
last month.
Instead it said security guarantees could not be provided for UN
aircraft in northern and southern Iraq, unless no-fly zones patrolled by
British and American aircraft were lifted.
"We are not surprised that once again the Iraqis want to delay and
deceive," said a spokesman for John D Negroponte, the US ambassador to
the UN.
Meanwhile in Baghdad, Iraq's parliament was meeting last night in
emergency session to respond to the US Congress vote authorising
President Bush to use force to disarm Iraq.
Recent Telegraph articles
on Iraq:
12 October 2002: Liberated Iraq could be ruled by US
general
12 October 2002: Putin may back tough new UN resolution
11 October 2002: Blair begins Russian mission
11 October 2002: We won't break up Iraq, Straw promises
Arabs
11 October 2002: Congress poised to back Bush on war
10 October 2002: Teheran backs UN-approved attack on Iraq
10 October 2002: Moscow names price to back campaign
26 September 2002: West split over final warning to
Saddam
