Asset Stripping, not Democracy, US policy in Iraq, says Garner, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 10-6-2006 @ 04:15 AM by rich23
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


reply posted on 27-12-2006 @ 11:25 AM by rich23
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.


reply posted on 28-12-2006 @ 06:44 AM 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.



reply posted on 28-12-2006 @ 07:18 AM by blanddad
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.


reply posted on 1-10-2007 @ 05:30 AM by EJHoover
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]

Pages:     ^^TOP^^



ALL ATS`ers are terrorists
  Posted 3 days ago with 9 member flags
CNN Endorsing Terrorism
  Posted 6 days ago with 7 member flags
Obama\'s terror Drones.
  Posted 4 days ago with 6 member flags
Pair Detained in Twitter Homeland Threat Mix-Up
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 13 hours ago, 107 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 9 hours ago, 88 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 7 hours ago, 61 replies
Free will
  Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 11 hours ago, 48 replies