Stardate 20030228.1649

(On Screen): With the inevitable royally-loused-up Blogspot archives, David at "The Art of Peace" asks some legitimate questions. (I remember reading somewhere last summer about a way that users of Blogspot could avoid this by changing their behavior, but I don't remember what it was. If anyone knows, could they mail it to me so I can post it?) Anyway, it's his post for 20030227.

If Steven Den Beste is correct, I guess the questions can be divided up into two categories. How about the occupation? How are we going to keep the Shia and Kurds from revolting after we get rid of Saddam?

Martial law and a substantial military occupation force. It isn't going to be 250,000 men, but we're going to keep a vary large force in Iraq for a long time. Initially there will be concentrations of men in major encampments, and others (especially MPs) working in the cities to keep order. If there is any revolt, it will be put down militarily if it can't be stopped by negotiation. But because of that, I don't actually expect one.

There will be a certain amount of terrorism; there will be some random shootings. There's going to be an ongoing war against some guerrilla groups. You're going to see bombings. But in the grand scheme of things all of those will be relatively small.

The basic plan for the future is similar in gross to what happened in Japan and Germany, though the details will be substantially different because of the difference in the situations. What happened in Japan and Germany was similar overall, but the details between the two were different. Likewise for Iraq. I can't give you the details because I don't know them; no one does. A lot of it will involve improvisation, in part because we won't really know what we have to work with until the war is actually over and we're really in there. For instance, We can't really predict what will be destroyed in the war (including scorched-earth revenge destruction by Baathist loyalists just before defeat).

Initially there will be intrusive (but not cruel) direct military rule of the nation by the US, including direct rule by an American governor. The plan is for the governor to be someone other than the military leader; General Franks won't be doing it.

No one has been publicly selected for that role yet. Bigwig suggests Rudy Giuliani for the job. I think he would be an outstanding choice. Giuliani is at liberty now anyway, and he's already demonstrated his competence as an administrator, including facility in dealing with the press and a significant degree of charisma plus an obvious ability to competently handle the unexpected. The symbolism involved is obvious, and he would not be seen as a partisan choice even though he's a Republican. I think that there would be little controversy if he were the one chosen, and I really hope someone in the government is already thinking about him and has talked to him about it. (Have I got any readers in the White House? I have no idea, but if I do, how about chatting this up with your bosses?)

If he's chosen, I want him wearing his FDNY hat the day he arrives.

Regardless of who it is, there will be a period of at least a year, possibly several years, in which we'd directly control Iraq. During that time we'd reestablish the rule of law, slowly go through the existing government bureaucracy and "de-Nazify" it, get the economy of the nation running again, get the inevitable corruption under control, establish schools, encourage a free and independent press, engage in a lot of propaganda to start working on the hearts and minds of the "Iraqi Street", fix whatever damage is done to the oil fields and associated facilities and get exports flowing to bring in money to pay for most of this, rebuild and upgrade the nation's infrastructure, and find and destroy all the WMDs and development programs and facilities, as well as locating and prosecuting the worst members of the previous regime. For instance, you'll see some warcrimes trials but they're not going to be in the ICC; they'll be in front of Australo-Anglo-American military tribunals.

We're also going to start encouraging local leaders to get together and start talking, but always on a short leash. And eventually there will be a process of turning control over to them, leading to a civilian government and a new constitution when it seems as if the time is right, but that won't happen according to a schedule.

But they don't get to make it anything they want. They can write the constitution but it will only go into effect if we approve of it. The process is not going to be like the one which happened in Afghanistan. We didn't have any significant strategic interest in the new government there; our concern was mostly humanitarian. But in Iraq we have a strong strategic interest in what is created; we need it to be mercantile, capitalist, liberal (i.e. supportive of individual rights and with limits on government abilities and balance of power among major branches), essentially egalitarian, secular, non-militant, and decreasingly tribal as time goes on.

We're going to impose the basic philosophy of that new government on them, just as we did in both Japan and in West Germany. There will be equal rights for all, and especially the legal status of women will be i