www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> Iraq pre and post [rdom, wark]
nettime's digest on Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:53:34 +0100 (CET)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> Iraq pre and post [rdom, wark]



Table of Contents:

   'Get Saddam'crowd Timeline pre-911                                              
     rdom {AT} thing.net                                                                  

   Telocs eyeing post war Iraq                                                     
     "McKenzie Wark" <mckenziewark {AT} hotmail.com>                                      



------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 22:47:49 +0100
From: rdom {AT} thing.net
Subject: 'Get Saddam'crowd Timeline pre-911

Unbeknownst to most of the American public, the 'Get Saddam' crowd has been 
calling on Bush to topple the Ba'ath regime since the very beginning of his 
administration - well before the terrorist attacks of  9-11.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/index.htm

Table of Contents
   
1        Think tanks, geopolitical strategists, etc.

2        Republican Party

3        Media reports and opinion pieces suggesting that there were sentiments 
prior to 9-11 to invade Iraq.

    
1        Think tanks, geopolitical strategists, etc. 
a         Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies.

i      A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, July 8 1996.

(A)   Summary.

(1)     The report was authored by a study group commissioned by the Institute 
for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies with the purpose of providing 
policy recommendations to the incoming government of Likud Prime Minister 
Benjamin Netanyahu.  Several individuals who now have key positions in the Bush 
administration contributed to the project, including Douglas Feith, now 
undersecretary of defense for policy; David Wurmser, now a special assistant to 
State Department arms-control chief John R. Bolton; and Richard Perle, the 
current chairman of the civilian Defense Policy Board [profile].   On July 10, 
two days after the Israeli Prime Minister received the report from Richard 
Perle, he gave a speech before a joint session of the U.S. Congress [US 
Congress 7/10/96], which reflected the policy recommendations outlined in the 
document. Also that day, the Wall Street Journal published excerpts of the 
report and then endorsed the recommendations in the following day’s editorial 
pages.  (Larouche 9-8-2002; Sands 10-7-2002)

(B)   Text.  [The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies 
6/8/2002]

(C)    Policy recommendations 

(1)     Specific actions.

(a)     Abandon the Oslo Accords.  (Larouche 9-8-2002)

(b)     Reserve the right to invade the West Bank and Gaza Strip when Israel 
believes it is appropriate to do so.  

(c)     Remove Saddam Hussein from power. (Larouche 9-8-2002; Sands 10-7-2002)

(d)     Overthrow or destabilize the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi 
Arabia, and Iran. (Larouche 9-8-2002; Sands 10-7-2002)

(2)     General policy changes.

(a)     Reestablish a policy of preemptive strikes.

(i)       The Washington Times, quoting the report, stated, “Israel 
would ‘transcend its foes’ by ‘re-establishing the principle of pre-emption, 
rather than retaliation alone, and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation 
without response,’ according to a summary of the panel's deliberations prepared 
by the think tank.”   (Sands 10-7-2002)

 

b         10 former government officials

i      9-point strategy to remove Saddam Hussein.

(A)   Summary.

(1)     On February 1998, a 9-point strategy for “bringing down Saddam and his 
regime,” was endorsed by 10 former government officials and was published as an 
open letter.  (cited in Everest 2001; Larouche 9-8-2002) Read Letter

 

(B)    Signatories.

(1)     Richard Perle, current chairman of the Defense Policy Board. [profile]

(2)     Stephen Solarz, former Congressman

(3)     Elliott Abrams, current senior director for democracy, human rights and 
international operations at the National Security Council.  [more info] 

(4)     Richard Armitage, current deputy secretary of state.

(5)      John Bolton, current undersecretary of arms control and international 
security.

(6)     Doug Feith, current undersecretary of Defense for Policy

(7)     Fred Ikle, former undersecretary of defense for policy

(8)     Zalmay Khalilzad, current special assistant to the President and senior 
director for Gulf, southwest Asia and other regional issues, National Security 
Council.

(9)     Peter Rodman, current assistant secretary of defense for international 
security affairs

(10)   Donald Rumsfeld, current secretary of defense

(11)  Paul Wolfowitz, current deputy secretary of defense.

(12)  David Wurmser, current director of Middle East studies at the 
neoconservative American Enterprise Institute

(13)  Dov Zakheim, current under secretary of defense
(Comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense

 

c         Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

i      Building America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New 
Century, September 2000

(A)   Written For:

(a)     Dick Cheney, vice president.

(b)     Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense.

(c)     Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense.

(d)     Jeb Bush, governor of Florida.

(e)     Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

 

(B)    People who attended meetings or contributed papers in preparation of the 
report. 

(1)     Roger Barnett

(a)     U.S. Naval War College

(2)     Alvin Bernstein

(a)     National Defense University

(3)     Stephen Cambone

(a)     National Defense University

(b)     Currently heads the Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation at the 
Defense Department

(4)     Eliot Cohen

(a)     Nitze School of Advanced International

(b)     Studies, Johns Hopkins University.

(c)     Currently on the Defense Policy Board [profile]

(5)     Devon Gaffney Cross

(a)     Donors' Forum for International Affairs

(6)     Thomas Donnelly

(a)     Project for the New American Century

(7)     David Epstein

(a)     Office of Secretary of Defense,

(b)     Net Assessment

(8)     David Fautua

(a)     Lt. Col., U.S. Army

(9)     Dan Goure

(a)     Center for Strategic and International Studies

(10)  Donald Kagan

(a)     Yale University

(11)  Fred Kagan

(a)     U. S. Military Academy at West Point

(12)  Robert Kagan

(a)     Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

(13)  Robert Killebrew

(a)     Col., USA (Ret.)

(14)  William Kristol

(a)     The Weekly Standard

(15)  Mark Lagon

(a)     Senate Foreign Relations Committee

(16)  James Lasswell

(a)     GAMA Corporation

(17)  Lewis Libby

(a)     Dechert Price & Rhoads

(b)     Currently on the vice president's chief of staff.

(18)  Robert Martinage

(a)     Center for Strategic and Budgetary

(b)     Assessment

(19)  Phil Meilinger

(a)     U.S. Naval War College

(20)  Mackubin Owens

(a)     U.S. Naval War College

(21)  Steve Rosen

(a)     Harvard University

(22)  Gary Schmitt

(a)     Project for the New American Century

(23)  Abram Shulsky

(a)     The RAND Corporation

(24)  Michael Vickers

(a)     Center for Strategic and Budgetary

(b)     Assessment

(25)  Barry Watts

(a)     Northrop Grumman Corporation

(26)  Paul Wolfowitz

(a)     Nitze School of Advanced International

(b)     Studies, Johns Hopkins University

(c)     Current Deputy Secretary of Defense.

(27)  Dov Zakheim

(a)     System Planning Corporation

(b)     Current undersecretary of defense (comptroller) and chief financial 
officer for the Pentagon

(C)    The Text.  [Rebuilding America's Defenses]

(D)    Excerpts.

(a)     The report’s plan for US global domination included “a premeditated 
attack on Iraq to secure ‘regime change’ even before” George Bush “took power 
in January 2001.”  (Mackay 9-15-2002)

 

c         James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University and 
the Council on Foreign Relations

i      Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, April 2001

(A)   Summary.

(1)     The report summarized an impending U.S. energy crisis and concluded 
that Saddam Hussein was a threat to “American interests” because of his control 
of Iraq’s enormous and high quality oil reserves.  The report recommended a 
policy of using military force in order ensure US control of Middle Eastern 
oil.  (Mackay 10-4-2002a; 10-4-2002b)

(B)    People who were ‘behind’ the document.

(1)     James Baker, who was advised by Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron; Luis 
Giusti, a Shell non-executive director; John Manzoni, regional president of BP 
David O'Reilly, chief executive of ChevronTexaco; and Sheikh Saud Al Nasser Al 
Sabah, the former Kuwaiti oil minister and a fellow of the Baker Institute.  
(Mackay 10-4-2002a)

(C)    Submitted to:

(1)     Vice-President Dick Cheney in April 2001.

(D)    The report.  [Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century]

(E)     Excerpts.

(1)     “[T]he United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma, 
suffering on a recurring basis from the negative consequences of sporadic 
energy shortages. These consequences can include recession, social dislocation 
of the poorest Americans, and at the extremes, a need for military 
intervention.” (pg. 34)

(2)      “Iraq remains a destabilising influence to ... the flow of oil to 
international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also 
demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own 
export programme to manipulate oil markets.  This would display his personal 
power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader and pressure others for a lifting 
of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an 
immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and 
political/diplomatic assessments.  The United States should then develop an 
integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries 
in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to 
restore a cohesive coalition of key allies…” (Pg. 42)

(3)      “Iraqi [oil] reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add 
capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil 
trade.”   (Pg. 43)

 
 
2        Republican Party 
a         Platform

i      Summary.

(A)   During George W. Bush's campaign, the Republican Party called for “a 
comprehensive plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein.” (cited Everest 2001)

 
 
3        Media reports and opinion pieces suggesting that there were sentiments 
prior to 9-11 to invade Iraq. 
a         January 22, 2001.  New York Times.  

i      The New York Times reported that according to unnamed U.S. 
officials, “Iraq has rebuilt a series of factories that the United States has 
long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.”  The newspaper 
also quoted one soon-to-be member of the administration saying, “'The Iraq 
problem has changed a lot since the last Bush administration left office.  It's 
become a lot more complex. That's beginning to dawn on them.”  The Times 
noted, “Throughout the campaign and transition, Mr. Bush and his national 
security advisers pledged to confront Mr. Hussein more aggressively than Mr. 
Clinton had,” and “The new intelligence estimate could confront President Bush 
with an early test of his pledge to take a tougher stance against President 
Saddam Hussein than the Clinton administration did.”  (Schmitt and Myers 1-22-
2001)

 

b         January 23, 2001.  The Times. 

i      The Times of London quoted an unnamed U.S. official saying that if Bush 
were to attack Iraq, “It will not be a pinprick, it will be strong and 
decisive…..Bush may have no option but to act if he wants to contain Saddam.”  
(cited in Mirak-Weissbach 2-16-2001)

 

c         January 23, 2001.  Richard Butler, former head of the U.N. special 
commission. Daily Telegraph. 

i      In an op-ed piece titled, “Bush should start where his father left off: 
With Saddam,” Butler expressed his concern about France and Russia’s 
increasingly friendly relations towards Iraq.  He criticized these countries 
for skirting the UN sanctions and suggested that the two countries’ actions 
were intended to diminish U.S. power.  The implication was that if Russia and 
France continued this course, it would be harder for the U.S. to justify a war 
against Iraq, therefore according to Butler, Bush would have to act quickly.  
(cited in Mirak-Weissbach 2-16-2001)

 


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:37:27 -0500
From: "McKenzie Wark" <mckenziewark {AT} hotmail.com>
Subject: Telocs eyeing post war Iraq


New York Times / February 17, 2003

Looking Beyond a War in Iraq
By SIMON ROMERO

The telecommunications equipment industry is
quietly pinning its hopes on a quick Iraqi war
that would be followed by an American-led
effort to rebuild the country after the ouster of
Saddam Hussein.


Iraq, whose communications networks were
heavily damaged in the 1991 gulf war, is sorely
in need of an entirely new and modern
telecommunications system for its civilian
population.


And if a pro-American government were to
emerge in Iraq, telecommunications equipment
analysts say American companies like Lucent
Technologies and Motorola could gain an edge
over competitors from France and China that
have won relatively modest contracts in recent
years to help Iraq improve its communications
network.


An important precedent, these analysts say,
came after the gulf war when Saudi Arabia
awarded Lucent at least $4.5 billion of
contracts to overhaul its telephone system.


That deal, among the largest government
awards to any equipment manufacturer in the
last decade, was widely associated with an
effort by allies in the region to favor American
companies after the war.


"A new government in Baghdad more favorably
disposed to the United States could tilt the
geopolitical favor of telecoms' future contracts
in the direction of American companies," said
Joseph Braude, a senior analyst at Pyramid
Research, a company in Cambridge, Mass.,
that conducts international telecommunications
research.


Mr. Braude, who is also the author of "The
New Iraq," a coming book about rebuilding that
country's infrastructure, estimated that Iraq
needed to invest at least $1 billion over the next
several years to improve its basic fixed-line
telephone system. Additional investments will
be needed to introduce wireless
communications and overhaul the nation's
international communications links, Mr. Braude
said.


[…]

Executives at American companies that are
analyzing contract opportunities in Iraq are
hesitant to discuss publicly their views of the
Iraqi market. Mary Lou Ambrus, a
spokeswoman for Lucent, which is based in
Murray Hill, N.J., declined to comment.


Jennifer Weyrauch, a Motorola spokeswoman,
said, "If an opportunity exists under the right
circumstances we would take a close look at
it." The company, a leader in wireless
communications, operates in 10 countries of the
Middle East and North Africa. "To this end,"
Ms. Weyrauch continued, "we urge the U.S.
Congress and administration to prepare to
promptly remove existing sanctions that would
impede U.S. businesses from participating in the
reconstruction and recovery effort."


It is premature and simplistic to discuss specific
contract possibilities because of the many
factors that would come into play after a war,
the nation's outstanding foreign debt obligations
and legal disputes that could emerge among
companies with existing Iraqi contracts and
firms seeking new business there.


"There are so many uncertainties involved in
commercial ambitions in Iraq," said Barbara
Oegg, a trade expert at the Institute for
International Economics, a research group in
Washington.


Still, the complexity related to Iraq has not
stopped American communications companies
from speculating about the future there. Joseph
R. Wright, the chief executive of PanAmSat, the
commercial international satellite operator
based in Wilton, Conn., said in an interview that
his company was evaluating the need for
communications systems in Iraq that include the
use of satellite links.


"Nation rebuilding in Iraq or Afghanistan or
wherever would have an advantage by adopting
hybrid technology solutions," Mr. Wright said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/17/technology/17NECO.html?pagewanted=print&position=top




___________________________________________________

http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/warktext.html
                   ... we no longer have roots, we have aerials ...
___________________________________________________




#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net