Islam Online- News Section

عربي

Home

News

Shari`ah

Counseling:

Search »

Advanced Search »

10 Blessed Days New

Mumbai Attacks & Aftermath New

Hajj 1429 New
Ibrahim's Call

Gaza: Open-Air Prison **

I Witness Hajj & Adha

World in Pictures

Venice Submerged

Islam, Muslims & Violence

Overcoming Masturbation

America in Transition **

World Economic
Crisis **

Iraq in Focus **

Radio Broadcast

» Special Pages

Services

Europe Alarmed By U.S. Plan for General to Govern Iraq

Anti-war demonstrations worldwide do not seem to convince Bush to back off

LONDON, October 13 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) - America's European allies are alarmed at a plan, on the making, in Washington to install a U.S. general to govern Iraq, after an inevitable invasion is complete, a British paper reported Sunday, October 13.

According to The Telegraph, the proposal (invading Iraq and installing a U.S. military ruler there to replace the Iraqi regime) is an implicit acknowledgement that America's long-running effort to identify an immediate and credible successor to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, among the ranks of the Iraqi opposition, has foundered.

Diplomats say that the suggestion, made by senior Bush administration officials Friday, October 11, has endangered frantic American and British efforts to secure a United Nations Security Council resolution backing tough new weapons inspections inside Iraq, the paper added.

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 U.S. officials in August. He said: "We were told that they want a broad-based Iraqi government, with no direct American role."

Under the plan, modeled on America's occupation of Japan after the Second World War, a top American commander - possibly General Tommy Franks, now in charge of U.S. 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 U.S. calls for inspections to be backed up by the simultaneous threat of military force, and many NATO members are also nervous.

The plan emanated from the Pentagon, where U.S. hawks, led by Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, want a quick invasion, assisted by hoped-for mutinies within Iraqi military ranks.

One London-based diplomat told The Telegraph, "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 U.S. 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 U.S. and allied troops will be needed for the occupation, which could last up to 10 years.

Under the plans, a ground force of five armored divisions and two airborne and helicopter assault divisions will be used in the operation to remove Saddam.

Jack Straw, the British 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 authorizing new weapons inspections inside Iraq and military force if they fail.

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 authorizing 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 Blix thought had been agreed.

An Iraqi letter to the UN, which came to light Saturday, October 11, failed to confirm details that Blix thought had been nailed down at the end of last month.

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 U.S. ambassador to the UN.

Meanwhile in Baghdad, Iraq's parliament was meeting Saturday night in emergency session to respond to the U.S. Congress vote authorizing President Bush to use force to disarm Iraq.