HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-443843,00.html [Wherein even Henry Kissinger appears a voice of sanity as against the New Imperialists. The by now standard canard about NATO is risible, beneath contempt. Key NATO nations, including the US, Britain, Germany, France, Turkey, even the Czech Republic, have troops, warships and air bases surrounding Iraq, from the Horn of Africa to the Persian Gulf and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, from inside Northern Iraq itself to proffered bases in NATO candidate nations Bulgaria, Romania and Georgia. That the NATO High Command in Brussels would not 'take unilateral military action against Iraq without approval from the UN' would be news to the people of Yugoslavia, who withstood a 79-day bombing onslaught by NATO bombers in the first inter-state war in Europe since the defeat of Hitler's Third Reich. It would also be news to the governments of four of the world's five most populous nations - China, India, Indonesia and Russia - which adamantly opposed that war (all but India then being members of the UN Security Council and China and Russia being permanent members), when Clinton, Blair, Albright, Solana, Jospin, Schroeder, Fischer and company dealt the United Nations its death blow. It was humanitarian intervention three years ago; now it's flavor of the day.] -The only other option was for Washington to turn to Nato, which ran the peacekeeping missions in Bosnia (60,000 troops), Kosovo (45,000 troops) and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (4,000 troops). However, Nato was "not even on the starting block" for a peacekeeping mission in a post-Saddam Iraq. Alliance diplomatic sources said that if the US were to take unilateral military action against Baghdad without approval from the UN, it would be difficult for Nato to become involved "in clearing up the mess" and rebuilding the country after a war. The Times (London) October 12, 2002 Iraq Bush's troops could govern Baghdad By Roland Watson in Washington and Michael Evans AMERICAN troops would occupy Iraq as part of a post-war coalition force to stabilise the country until a new government was formed, officials said yesterday. One option is the installation of a military government in Baghdad. The White House said that the United States would "not cut and run" from Iraq after the toppling of President Saddam Hussein, and there would be a critical post-war role for the military. Ari Fleischer, Mr Bush's spokesman, said: "The Administration is determined that if this becomes a matter of military action, that we not let Iraq fall apart." He said that Washington was working through options to ensure stability, including "civil affairs units" of the military playing a role in the governing of Iraq in the immediate aftermath. He said that the aim was to transfer power quickly to the Iraqi people. "In the process, we want to make certain that stability is achieved so the Iraqi people can have water, food, heat, electricity." British defence sources said that there were few nations, probably only the US and Britain, which would be capable of masterminding a peacekeeping force consisting of tens of thousands of troops. The only other option was for Washington to turn to Nato, which ran the peacekeeping missions in Bosnia (60,000 troops), Kosovo (45,000 troops) and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (4,000 troops). However, Nato was "not even on the starting block" for a peacekeeping mission in a post-Saddam Iraq. Alliance diplomatic sources said that if the US were to take unilateral military action against Baghdad without approval from the UN, it would be difficult for Nato to become involved "in clearing up the mess" and rebuilding the country after a war. The more favoured proposal would see the US play a leading role in the stabilisation force. American sources said that it might include British troops and other forces from countries that took part in any military action. If military action were authorised by the United Nations, a UN force could be used. A senior British military source said that if Britain were going to send a reinforced armoured brigade of about 15,000 troops for an offensive against the Saddam regime, the Government would not want the additional commitment of keeping a large peacekeeping force in Iraq over an extended period, although there would inevitably be some British military contribution to a multinational stabilisation force. Some US officials are arguing that Washington should assume full authority in Iraq until American and other coalition troops have found and destroyed all Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. A separate aim would be to prevent the country from splintering into ethnic enclaves. The Bush Administration has committed itself to setting up a democratic regime to succeed Saddam within Iraq's existing boundaries. Neighbouring countries and potential allies in any conflict have voiced concern that Washington has done little apparent planning about what would follow the toppling of Saddam. Disclosure of Washington's thinking is designed in part to reassure the world, and Gulf kingdoms in particular, that the US will not "cut and run" after a war. But the disclosure that a military government is being considered, leaked yesterday to The New York Times, is also likely to raise concerns in the region. Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State, has said that an occupying American force would further inflame Muslim opinion against the US. "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," he said. The latest White House thinking suggests that it has rejected a Pentagon proposal to set up a government in exile, based on the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC). The State Department and CIA opposed the idea because the INC has no standing in Iraq. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.bacIlu Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
