The Bush administration has outlined two strikingly different plans to run oil-rich but volatile Iraq if Saddam Hussein’s regime is toppled, according to US officials.
One plan is a go-it-alone strategy forcing the US to remain longer in Iraq to ensure that its goals of disarmament and democracy are fulfilled. While this would give Washington more control over what happens, it would almost certainly cost more and make a larger US military and diplomatic presence more vulnerable to backlash.
Veto on Iraq resolution
possible: Russia |
BEIJING: Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said on Friday Russia opposed any UN Security Council resolution which would lead to a war to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and declined to rule out a Russian veto. ‘‘Russia does not support any resolution which could directly or indirectly open the way to an armed resolution of the Iraq problem,’’ Ivanov told a news conference in Beijing. ‘‘Naturally, Russia has the right of veto. If the interest of international stability demands it, Russia, of course will exercise its right,’’ he said. Washington and London are facing an uphill battle in winning approval for the resolution, which requires a minimum of nine positive votes in the 15-member Council and no veto from France, Russia and China. (Reuters) |
The other plan would share the burden of rebuilding Iraq. Under this plan, the US would transfer much of the authority to the international community after an initial US-run administration lasting three or four months.
Although most planners have a strong preference for a major international component, it may prove unattainable, especially if the war becomes messy or protracted and other countries are loath to become involved in a post-invasion Iraq.
The list of US objectives is long, and achieving each will be a time-consuming process:
• Tracking down any hidden nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles and destroying them, followed by setting up verification and monitoring mechanisms to ensure that Iraq remains disarmed.
• Stabilising assorted humanitarian crises after war and years of an international economic embargo.
• Unravelling any links the Baghdad regime may have with terrorism and dismantling the infrastructure.
• Reconstructing Iraq after the war and rebuilding the long-troubled oil sector to generate new income. (LATWP)