Denys writes:

> So, what you are saying is that you do not have any factual evidence of your
>  assertions.  Ok.

Here's one article that was "leaked" to the NY Times just a few days ago
concerning the planned military governorship of post-Saddam Iraq:

=======================================

A PLAN FOR IRAQ

U.S. Has a Plan to Occupy Iraq, Officials Report

By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 -- The White House is developing a detailed plan, modeled
on the postwar occupation of Japan, to install an American-led military
government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam Hussein, senior
administration officials said today.

The plan also calls for war-crime trials of Iraqi leaders and a transition to
an elected civilian government that could take months or years.

In the initial phase, Iraq would be governed by an American military
commander -- perhaps Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of United States forces
in the Persian Gulf, or one of his subordinates -- who would assume the role
that Gen. Douglas MacArthur served in Japan after its surrender in 1945.

One senior official said the administration was "coalescing around" the
concept after discussions of options with President Bush and his top aides.
But this official and others cautioned that there had not yet been any formal
approval of the plan and that it was not clear whether allies had been
consulted on it.

The detailed thinking about an American occupation emerges as the
administration negotiates a compromise at the United Nations that officials
say may fall short of an explicit authorization to use force but still allow
the United States to claim it has all the authority it needs to force Iraq to
disarm.

In contemplating an occupation, the administration is scaling back the
initial role for Iraqi opposition forces in a post-Hussein government. Until
now it had been assumed that Iraqi dissidents both inside and outside the
country would form a government, but it was never clear when they would take
full control.

Today marked the first time the administration has discussed what could be a
lengthy occupation by coalition forces, led by the United States.

Officials say they want to avoid the chaos and in-fighting that have plagued
Afghanistan since the defeat of the Taliban. Mr. Bush's aides say they also
want full control over Iraq while American-led forces carry out their
principal mission: finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction.

The description of the emerging American plan and the possibility of
war-crime trials of Iraqi leaders could be part of an administration effort
to warn Iraq's generals of an unpleasant future if they continue to support
Mr. Hussein.

Asked what would happen if American pressure prompted a coup against Mr.
Hussein, a senior official said, "That would be nice." But the official
suggested that the American military might enter and secure the country
anyway, not only to eliminate weapons of mass destruction but also to ensure
against anarchy.

Under the compromise now under discussion with France, Russia and China,
according to officials familiar with the talks, the United Nations Security
Council would approve a resolution requiring the disarmament of Iraq and
specifying "consequences" that Iraq would suffer for defiance.

It would stop well short of the explicit authorization to enforce the
resolution that Mr. Bush has sought. But the diplomatic strategy, now being
discussed in Washington, Paris and Moscow, would allow Mr. Bush to claim that
the resolution gives the United States all the authority he believes he needs
to force Baghdad to disarm.

Other Security Council members could offer their own, less muscular
interpretations, and they would be free to draft a second resolution,
authorizing the use of force, if Iraq frustrated the inspection process. The
United States would regard that second resolution as unnecessary, senior
officials say.

"Everyone would read this resolution their own way," one senior official said.

The revelation of the occupation plan marks the first time the administration
has described in detail how it would administer Iraq in the days and weeks
after an invasion, and how it would keep the country unified while searching
for weapons.

It would put an American officer in charge of Iraq for a year or more while
the United States and its allies searched for weapons and maintained Iraq's
oil fields.

For as long as the coalition partners administered Iraq, they would
essentially control the second largest proven reserves of oil in the world,
nearly 11 percent of the total. A senior administration official said the
United Nations oil-for-food program would be expanded to help finance
stabilization and reconstruction.

Administration officials said they were moving away from the model used in
Afghanistan: establishing a provisional government right away that would be
run by Iraqis. Some top Pentagon officials support this approach, but the
State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and, ultimately, the White
House, were cool to it.

"We're just not sure what influence groups on the outside would have on the
inside," an administration official said. "There would also be differences
among Iraqis, and we don't want chaos and anarchy in the early process."

Instead, officials said, the administration is studying the military
occupations of Japan and Germany. But they stressed a commitment to keeping
Iraq unified, as Japan was, and avoiding the kind partition that Germany
underwent when Soviet troops stayed in the eastern sector, which set the
stage for the cold war. The military government in Germany stayed in power
for four years; in Japan it lasted six and a half years.

In a speech on Saturday, Zalmay Khalilzad, the special assistant to the
president for Near East, Southwest Asian and North African affairs, said,
"The coalition will assume -- and the preferred option -- responsibility for
the territorial defense and security of Iraq after liberation."

"Our intent is not conquest and occupation of Iraq," Mr. Khalilzad said. "But
we do what needs to be done to achieve the disarmament mission and to get
Iraq ready for a democratic transition and then through democracy over time."

Iraqis, perhaps through a consultative council, would assist an American-led
military and, later, a civilian administration, a senior official said today.
Only after this transition would the American-led government hand power to
Iraqis.

He said that the Iraqi armed forces would be "downsized," and that senior
Baath Party officials who control government ministries would be removed.
"Much of the bureaucracy would carry on under new management," he added.

Some experts warned during Senate hearings last month that a prolonged
American military occupation of Iraq could inflame tensions in the Mideast
and the Muslim world.

"I am viscerally opposed to a prolonged occupation of a Muslim country at the
heart of the Muslim world by Western nations who proclaim the right to
re-educate that country," said the former secetary of state, Henry A.
Kissinger, who as a young man served as a district administrator in the
military government of occupied Germany.

While the White House considers its long-term plans for Iraq, Britain's prime
minister, Tony Blair, arrived in Moscow this evening for a day and a half of
talks with President Vladimir V. Putin. Aides said talks were focused on
resolving the dispute at the United Nations. Mr. Blair and Mr. Putin are to
hold formal discussions on Friday, followed by a news conference.

Mr. Blair has been a steadfast supporter of the administration's tough line
on a new resolution. But he has also indicated that Britain would consider
France's proposal to have a two-tiered approach, with the Security Council
first adopting a resolution to compel Iraq to cooperate with international
weapons inspectors, and then, if Iraq failed to comply, adopting a second
resolution on military force. Earlier this week, Russia indicated that it,
too, was prepared to consider the French position.

But the administration is now saying that if there is a two-resolution
approach, it will insist that the first resolution provide Mr. Bush all the
authority he needs.

"The timing of all this is impossible to anticipate," one administration
official involved in the talks said. "The president doesn't want to have to
wait around for a second resolution if it is clear that the Iraqis are not
cooperating."

========================================

Wirt Atmar

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *