Asset Stripping, not Democracy, US policy in Iraq, says Garner

Donald Rumsfeld sacked Jay Garner from his job of putting Iraq on its feet immediately after the invasion because Garner wanted to hold elections within 90 days. The excellent investigative journalist Greg Palast has spoken to Garner and uncovered rather a lot of questionable material related to "the Plan".

"My preference," Garner told me in his understated manner, "was to put the Iraqis in charge as soon as we can and do it in some form of elections."

But elections were not in The Plan.

The Plan was a 101-page document to guide the long-term future of the land we'd just conquered. There was nothing in it about democracy or elections or safety. There was, rather, a detailed schedule for selling off "all [Iraq's] state assets" -- and Iraq, that's just about everything -- "especially," said The Plan, "the oil and supporting industries." Especially the oil.

There was more than oil to sell off. The Plan included the sale of Iraq's banks, and weirdly, changing it's copyright laws and other odd items that made the plan look less like a program for Iraq to get on its feet than a program for corporate looting of the nation's assets. (And indeed, we discovered at BBC, behind many of the odder elements -- copyright and tax code changes -- was the hand of lobbyist Jack Abramoff's associate Grover Norquist.)

But Garner didn't think much of The Plan, he told me when we met a year later in Washington. He had other things on his mind. "You prevent epidemics, you start the food distribution program to prevent famine."

Seizing title and ownership of Iraq's oil fields was not on Garner's must-do list. He let that be known to Washington. "I don't think [Iraqis] need to go by the U.S. plan, I think that what we need to do is set an Iraqi government that represents the freely elected will of the people." He added, "It's their country … their oil."

Apparently, the Secretary of Defense disagreed. So did lobbyist Norquist. And Garner incurred their fury by getting carried away with the "democracy" idea: he called for quick elections -- within 90 days of the taking of Baghdad.

But Garner's 90-days-to-elections commitment ran straight into the oil sell-off program. Annex D of the plan indicated that would take at least 270 days -- at least 9 months.

Worse, Garner was brokering a truce between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. They were about to begin what Garner called a "Big Tent" meeting to hammer out the details and set the election date. He figured he had 90 days to get it done before the factions started slitting each other's throats.
....

In April 2003, Bremer instituted democracy Bush style: he canceled elections and appointed the entire government himself. Two months later, Bremer ordered a halt to all municipal elections including the crucial vote to Shia seeking to select a mayor in the city of Najaf. The front-runner, moderate Shia Asad Sultan Abu Gilal warned, "If they don't give us freedom, what will we do? We have patience, but not for long." Local Shias formed the "Mahdi Army," and within a year, provoked by Bremer's shutting their paper, attacked and killed 21 U.S. soldiers.

Here is a link to this excerpt from Palast's new book, Armed Madhouse, which is going to be a must-buy for this poster. I'd link to Palast's site itself, but I can't seem to get in. I wonder why? Could the ISPs have forsaken Net Neutrality so soon after the US dispensed with it?

However, the BBC website has some examples of his journalism:

Secret US plans for Iraq's oil
a list of his other articles

Well, this thread met a rousing silence when I first posted it six months ago and I thought I'd bump it because it puts an interesting light on the recent orgy of neocons blaming each other for the Iraq debacle.

For example, Bremer gets quite a lot of stick for what he did: but he was only executing the neocons' plan for selling off Iraqi assets!

If you want to know WHY things have gone so t*ts-up in Iraq, you could start with the article I quoted. It shows that the intent was never about "freedom and democracy" - it was about PROFIT.

And the Iraqis recognised that pretty damn quickly.

This is WHY the USA will not succeed in Iraq.

The interests of the Iraqi's were not priority number 1.
The corporate world was sitting top of that pretty lil gold plated chart.

Unfortunately, it was obvious to the people who mattered, the Iraqi's... and just as obvious, but deliberatley ignored by the 'other' people that mattered... the american society.

If we were there to assist the Iraqi's, they'd be assiting us.
You dont kill the people who are trying to help you succeed in quality of life. You kill the people who are trying to DUPE you, into believing thats what they are doing.

Thanks rich, ill check it out



[edit on 27-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 27-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]

Where are all the usual propagandists explaining how this policy was part of our "lberation" of Iraq?

Isn't someone even going to come in and explain how Garner is a "traitor" for opening his mouth?

Nice find rich.

This does look damning to the administration, but not knowing anything about Greg Palast, I will reserve judgment on this report for now. I know this war was all about making a profit, but I would like to look into these claims more when I have time.

rich, have you read the book yet, and if so what do you think about it?

And wouldn't we like to get our hands on this 101 page "plan"?

I haven't read the new book yet, but I got The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, which was excellent. And his website has got lots of good stuff in it.

Isn't it funny... this was around six months ago and NOBODy seems to have checked it... no replies, at any rate, until the bump.

I'm just waiting for the "he only wrote this to sell his book" line. Newsflash - just because someone wants to sell a book has no bearing on whether the information is true or not.

Originally posted by rich23
Isn't it funny... this was around six months ago and NOBODy seems to have checked it... no replies, at any rate, until the bump.

It was probably because of some other story drawing people's attention. It also depends on how many other posts are being placed. On some days I've seen so many posts going up other threads get run off recent post page in less than an hour.

There is no shame in bumping your own thread once in a while.

Thanks for the info on the book.

Garner is right about everything expect for the election. It as been shown that ground work for an elected government dosnt exist in Iraq. Electing a government in Iraq was like building the roof of house before you lay the foundations.

Having said that Garner might have had the brains to pull off the elections and bring security to Iraq. Rumsfeld is now a colossal failure and a puppet for corporate interests.

Thanks Rich

As this information eventuallty hits the man on the street; heat up the tar and fluff up the feathers. Electorally speaking of course.

I sure would like for some of our more conservative ATS members to respond to this thread. By the way; where are they? Maybe BTS.

I was replying to posts on another thread and found out a few things I thought would bear mentioning here.

The US shut down mobile phone services in Iraq shortly after the invasion. A Bahraini company, Batelco, had managed to get things up and running, but they were using a system at odds with the one in use in the US.

But then, so does most of the rest of the world.

So Batelco was shut down, and then when the time came for the US authorities to allow bids on the mobile phone contracts for Iraq, they weighted the scales massively in favour of US firms, as this BBC news item shows:

Rules drawn up for mobile phone licences in Iraq by the US authorities in Iraq could bar many of Europe's biggest telecoms companies - and almost all those in the Middle East - from bidding.

Why? Because the US wants to export its own mobile standard, and it doesn't matter if it's more expensive and inconvenient for Iraqis as long as the US companies make money on the deal:

While all neighbouring countries work on the GSM standard which is used by 70% of mobile subscribers worldwide, there has been pressure from the US to favour the cdmaOne standard invented by US company QualComm.

Some Republican congressmen with ties to QualComm have said that would help US companies win deals to build the networks.

But the licence rules require winners to "provide full national and international roaming service to their customers through agreements with other Iraqi licensees and with a wide range of operators in trading partner countries".

Almost all Iraq's trading partners use GSM, and cross-network roaming - whether domestic or international - is both technologically difficult and very expensive.

This article gives more detail on the politicking behind the standards war. It's hilarious that Congressman Darrell Issa (R, QualComm) played the French card... remember all that propaganda against the French?

"If European [sic] GSM technology is deployed in Iraq, much of the equipment used to build the cell phone system will be manufactured in France by Alcatel, in Germany by Siemens, and elsewhere in western and northern Europe."

He seems a little vague here about "Northern Europe" and is very coy about naming the Nordic telephony pioneers explicitly: Sweden and Finland. But he continues, a little shakily:

"Therefore, if our understanding of this situation is correct, because of ill-considered planning, the U.S. government will soon hand U.S. taxpayer dollars over to French, German, and other European cell phone equipment companies to build the new Iraqi cell phone system."

"This is not acceptable" he cries.

Originally posted by rich23
I was replying to posts on another thread and found out a few things I thought would bear mentioning here.

The US shut down mobile phone services in Iraq shortly after the invasion. A Bahraini company, Batelco, had managed to get things up and running, but they were using a system at odds with the one in use in the US.

But then, so does most of the rest of the world.

So Batelco was shut down, and then when the time came for the US authorities to allow bids on the mobile phone contracts for Iraq, they weighted the scales massively in favour of US firms, as this BBC news item shows:

Rules drawn up for mobile phone licences in Iraq by the US authorities in Iraq could bar many of Europe's biggest telecoms companies - and almost all those in the Middle East - from bidding.

Why? Because the US wants to export its own mobile standard, and it doesn't matter if it's more expensive and inconvenient for Iraqis as long as the US companies make money on the deal:

While all neighbouring countries work on the GSM standard which is used by 70% of mobile subscribers worldwide, there has been pressure from the US to favour the cdmaOne standard invented by US company QualComm.

Some Republican congressmen with ties to QualComm have said that would help US companies win deals to build the networks.

But the licence rules require winners to "provide full national and international roaming service to their customers through agreements with other Iraqi licensees and with a wide range of operators in trading partner countries".

Almost all Iraq's trading partners use GSM, and cross-network roaming - whether domestic or international - is both technologically difficult and very expensive.

This article gives more detail on the politicking behind the standards war. It's hilarious that Congressman Darrell Issa (R, QualComm) played the French card... remember all that propaganda against the French?

"If European [sic] GSM technology is deployed in Iraq, much of the equipment used to build the cell phone system will be manufactured in France by Alcatel, in Germany by Siemens, and elsewhere in western and northern Europe."

He seems a little vague here about "Northern Europe" and is very coy about naming the Nordic telephony pioneers explicitly: Sweden and Finland. But he continues, a little shakily:

"Therefore, if our understanding of this situation is correct, because of ill-considered planning, the U.S. government will soon hand U.S. taxpayer dollars over to French, German, and other European cell phone equipment companies to build the new Iraqi cell phone system."

"This is not acceptable" he cries.

I do not agree that the reason why US standards are being applied for telephony in Iraq is for US companies to make money. Don't get me wrong, we are pleased as punch if US companies make money, but the true reason is for control. 3CI is the formula for defeating your opponent and COMMUNICATIONS is one of the main ingrediants. That is also why we export radar systems or any other sort of technology is to KNOW what the others are using and then use it against them. When we went to rescue the hostages in Iran, we knew the radar system because we installed it... the mission failed due to other difficulties but we had penetrated their defenses.

i'm more inclined to see the USA as doing everything possible
to make everything in Iraq both dependent and entwined with
all of Americas' Corporate empire.
So, Iraq is not being looked at as merely a resource resevoir to be
sopped up by the giant American sponge (rampant corporate profits)

Iraq is a 'long-term' project,
i think Iraq is destined to become a U.S. 'Protectorate',
the fairly quick [satrap] Iraqi government is a thinnly veiled sham,
but it is a way for Iraq to request diplomatic & strategic 'Protection'
under the wings-of-the-USA-eagle.

sure therewill be a lot of'profits' that will drain from Iraq, thru the local economy,
and ultimately into Western Corporations' bank accounts.
but the tricky channeling of monies through the local Iraq economy
is the magicians illusion which the globalist-elites, mega-corporations have perfected already.
..giving the masses only an illusion of prosperity, so as to lead, direct, control them.

hey, we're in the same ballpark,
but focused in different aspects/viewpoints

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
This is WHY the USA will not succeed in Iraq.

The interests of the Iraqi's were not priority number 1.
The corporate world was sitting top of that pretty lil gold plated chart.

Unfortunately, it was obvious to the people who mattered, the Iraqi's... and just as obvious, but deliberatley ignored by the 'other' people that mattered... the american society.

If we were there to assist the Iraqi's, they'd be assiting us.
You dont kill the people who are trying to help you succeed in quality of life. You kill the people who are trying to DUPE you, into believing thats what they are doing.

Thanks rich, ill check it out



[edit on 27-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 27-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]

The interests of the Iraqis were front and center, nor back and rear, they were never considered at all period. It wasn't just to strip Iraqi assets though, it was also (along with the war on terror) a smoke shield and a distraction to dismantle or privatize as much of the U.S. government as possible. If you don't believe me read up on what Grover Norquist and his cronies have been proposing all along. He was hired by the incoming Bush team in 2000/01 to help vet potential nominees for office. This has been in the works for a long time and hidden in plain sight.

To put it simply, They want to turn Iraqi into the perfect capitalist minion, a fine shining example to the rest of the middle east. "we are going to take your resources, and you are going to thank us for it". I guess they are paying now for underestimating us.

Operation
Iraqi
Liberation.

Wasn't that the invasions original name? But There are some that say it's not just about oil, well that's actually they are right. It's about Oil, Israel and strategic locations.

If we were there to assist the Iraqi's, they'd be assiting us.
You dont kill the people who are trying to help you succeed in quality of life. You kill the people who are trying to DUPE you, into believing thats what they are doing.

Well it was the invasion that initially killed people, actually the US was killing people before the war even began with ariel bombardements for a duration of 10 years. does anyone remember that? And iraqies didn't belive the US was actually there for there own benefits. No insult intended to present company, but we aren't as gullible and easily fooled as the american people.

Originally posted by blanddad

I do not agree that the reason why US standards are being applied for telephony in Iraq is for US companies to make money. Don't get me wrong, we are pleased as punch if US companies make money, but the true reason is for control. 3CI is the formula for defeating your opponent and COMMUNICATIONS is one of the main ingrediants. That is also why we export radar systems or any other sort of technology is to KNOW what the others are using and then use it against them. When we went to rescue the hostages in Iran, we knew the radar system because we installed it... the mission failed due to other difficulties but we had penetrated their defenses.

Hmm that may be true for radar systems but even then the main reason you export anything is to make money. I am sure that the big brains in the US military know all about GSM as well.

GSM as US government representatives should know is a 'global' open standard that is also manufactured by American firms such as Motorola and Nortel. The choice to use CDMA when there was a presumably existing GSM network in place seems a bit strange as they are technically different.

The only motivation to do this is one of commercial advantage. I stop short of claiming why that commercial advantage is needed and who benefits by pulling down one system and replacing it with another but Nokia, Marconi andall of the Europeans that they don't want to give the money to also make CDMA equipment - presumably the job should go to whoever is the most competitive. Perhaps US industry doesn't believe in laissez-faire capitalism afterall.

One of the biggest complaints about the British Empire was that it only existed to find semi-captive markets for British products. Off goes the Empire, off goes British Manufacturing. Could this be related

[edit on 1-10-2007 by EJHoover]