[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 137 (Thursday, October 17, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10640-S10642]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   U.S. EFFORTS IN POST-CONFLICT IRAQ

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, early last Friday morning, the Senate 
acted on the President's request to grant him authority to use force in 
Iraq. I joined with a majority of my colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle to support the resolution granting that authority, but made clear 
then and continue to believe now that our vote was the first step in 
our effort to address the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass 
destruction. In my statement before that vote, I indicated the 
President faces several challenges as he attempts to fashion a policy 
that will be successful in our efforts against Saddam Hussein and his 
weapons of mass destruction.
  One of those challenges is preparing for what might happen in Iraq 
after Saddam Hussein and preparing the American people for what might 
be required of us on this score. To that end, I was interested to see 
an article in Friday morning's newspaper with the title, ``U.S. Has a 
Plan to Occupy Iraq, Officials Report.''
  Citing unnamed administration officials, the article contends the 
administration is modeling plans for the economic and political 
reconstruction of Iraq on the successful efforts in post-WWII Japan. 
The article goes on to report that the Administration has yet to 
endorse a final position and this issue had not been discussed with key 
American allies. When questioned at a press conference Friday 
afternoon, the White House spokesperson distanced himself from this 
specific plan.
  If this news account is true, I have no choice but to conclude this 
administration has much to do before it will be in position to present 
a plan to the American people and the world about what

[[Page S10641]]

it feels is necessary to promote economic and political stability in 
post-conflict Iraq. We do know, however, that a plan based on the Japan 
precedent would require a significant and lengthy commitment of 
American political will, economic resources, and military might.
  While I do not doubt either our resolve or capability to be 
successful in Iraq, it is critical that the Administration be clear 
with the Congress, the American people, and the world about what it 
believes will be needed in post-Saddam Iraq, what portion of that it 
believes America should undertake, and what it believes others should 
be prepared to do. To this end, I urge the President and his 
administration to keep in mind the following facts and questions as 
planning for post-conflict Iraq continues.
  General MacArthur and President Truman made a strategic choice in 
post-WWII Japan to leave intact as much as 95 percent of the imperial 
Japanese government, including the Emperor himself, because of the fear 
of what impact a massive upheaval of the government structure would 
have on stability in Japan. Do the President and his team intend to 
follow that precedent, or we will start from scratch in constructing 
post-conflict institutions in Iraq?
  We maintained nearly 80,000 troops in Japan for 6 years after V-J Day 
and still maintain 47,000 troops to this day, more than a half century 
after the conflict officially ended. How long does the administration 
anticipate having U.S. forces in post-conflict Iraq, and how much of 
this burden can we anticipate our friends allies will assume?
  Post-WWII Japan represented an ethnically and religiously homogenous 
population. How does the fact that Iraq is riven by ethnic and 
religious difference impact U.S. planning for post-conflict Iraq?
  From 1946 to 1950, the Congressional Research Service estimates that 
the United States spent a yearly average of $3 billion, in today's 
dollars, for the occupation of Japan. Are those the kinds of numbers 
the President and his team anticipate for political and economic 
reconstruction in post-conflict Iraq?
  If the administration plans on obtaining assistance from others, what 
nations is it assuming will be willing to help us? What is the 
administration assuming these other nations are prepared to do and for 
how long? If no plan is yet in place and no allies briefed, when does 
the administration believe such discussions should begin?
  I ask unanimous consent to print the article in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Oct. 11, 2002]

            U.S. Has a Plan To Occupy Iraq, Officials Report

                 (By David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt)

       Washington.--The White House is developing a detailed plan, 
     modeled on the postwar occupation of Japan, to install an 
     American-led military government in Iraq if the United States 
     topples Saddam Hussein, senior administration officials said 
     today.
       The plan also calls for war-crime trials of Iraqi leaders 
     and a transition to an elected civilian government that could 
     take months or years.
       In the initial phase, Iraq would be governed by an American 
     military commander--perhaps Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander 
     of United States forces in the Persian Gulf, or one of his 
     subordinates--who would assume the role that Gen. Douglas 
     MacArthur served in Japan after its surrender in 1945.
       One senior official said the administration was 
     ``coalescing around'' the concept after discussions of 
     options with President Bush and his top aides. But this 
     official and others cautioned that there had not yet been any 
     formal approval of the plan and that it was not clear whether 
     allies had been consulted on it.
       The detailed thinking about an American occupation emerges 
     as the administration negotiates a compromise at the United 
     Nations that officials say may fall short of an explicit 
     authorization to use force but still allow the United States 
     to claim it has all the authority it needs to force Iraq to 
     disarm.
       In contemplating an occupation, the administration is 
     scaling back the initial role for Iraqi opposition forces in 
     a post-Hussein government. Until now it had been assumed that 
     Iraqi dissidents both inside and outside the country would 
     form a government, but it was never clear when they would 
     take full control.
       Today marked the first time the administration has 
     discussed what could be a lengthy occupation by coalition 
     forces, led by the United States.
       Officials say they want to avoid the chaos and in-fighting 
     that have plagued Afghanistan since the defeat of the 
     Taliban. Mr. Bush's aides say they also want full control 
     over Iraq while American-led forces carry out their principal 
     mission: finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction.
       The description of the emerging American plan and the 
     possibility of war-crime trials of Iraqi leaders could be 
     part of an administration effort to warn Iraq's generals of 
     an unpleasant future if they continue to support Mr. Hussein.
       Asked what would happen if American pressure prompted a 
     coup against Mr. Hussein, a senior official said, ``That 
     would be nice.'' But the official suggested that the American 
     military might enter and secure the country anyway, not only 
     to eliminate weapons of mass destruction but also to ensure 
     against anarchy.
       Under the compromise now under discussion with France, 
     Russia and China, according to officials familiar with the 
     talks, the United Nations Security Council would approve a 
     resolution requiring the disarmament of Iraq and specifying 
     ``consequences'' that Iraq would suffer for defiance.
       It would stop well short of the explicit authorization to 
     enforce the resolution that Mr. Bush has sought. But the 
     diplomatic strategy, now being discussed in Washington, Paris 
     and Moscow, would allow Mr. Bush to claim that the resolution 
     gives the United States all the authority he believes he 
     needs to force Baghdad to disarm.
       Other Security Council members could offer their own, less 
     muscular interpretations, and they would be free to draft a 
     second resolution, authorizing the use of force, if Iraq 
     frustrated the inspection process. The United States would 
     regard that second resolution as unnecessary, senior 
     officials say.
       ``Everyone would read this resolution their own way,'' one 
     senior official said.
       The revelation of the occupation plan marks the first time 
     the administration has described in detail how it would 
     administer Iraq in the days and weeks after an invasion, and 
     how it would keep the country unified while searching for 
     weapons.
       It would put an American officer in charge of Iraq for a 
     year or more while the United States and its allies searched 
     for weapons and maintained Iraq's oil fields.
       For as long as the coalition partners administered Iraq, 
     they would essentially control the second largest proven 
     reserves of oil in the world, nearly 11 percent of the total. 
     A senior administration official said the United Nations oil-
     for-food program would be expanded to help finance 
     stabilization and reconstruction.
       Administration officials said they were moving away from 
     the model used in Afghanistan: establishing a provisional 
     government right away that would be run by Iraqis. Some top 
     Pentagon officials support this approach, but the State 
     Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and, ultimately, 
     the White House, were cool to it.
       ``We're just not sure what influence groups on the outside 
     would have on the inside,'' an administration official said. 
     ``There would also be differences among Iraqis, and we don't 
     want chaos and anarchy in the early process.''
       Instead, officials said, the administration is studying the 
     military occupations of Japan and Germany. But they stressed 
     a commitment to keeping Drag unified, as Japan was, and 
     avoiding the kind of partition that Germany underwent when 
     Soviet troops stayed in the eastern sector, which set the 
     stage for the cold war. The military government in Germany 
     stayed in power for four years; in Japan it lasted six and a 
     half years.
       In a speech on Saturday, Zalmay Khalilzad, the special 
     assistant to the president for Near East, Southwest Asian and 
     North African affairs, said, ``The coalition will assume--and 
     the preferred option--responsibility for the territorial 
     defense and security of Iraq after liberation.''
       ``Our intent is not conquest and occupation of Iraq,'' Mr. 
     Khalilzad said. ``But we do what needs to be done to achieve 
     the disarmament mission and to get Iraq ready for a 
     democratic transition and then through democracy over time.''
       Iraqis, perhaps through a consultative council, would 
     assist an American-led military and, later, a civilian 
     administration, a senior official said today. Only after this 
     transition would the American-led government hand power to 
     Iraqis.
       He said that the Iraqi armed forces would be ``downsized,'' 
     and that senior Baath Party officials who control government 
     ministries would be removed. ``Much of the bureaucracy would 
     carry on under new management,'' he added.
       Some experts warned during Senate hearings last month that 
     a prolonged American military occupation of Iraq could 
     inflame tensions in the Mideast and the Muslim world.
       ``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,'' 
     said the former secretary of state, Henry A. Kissinger, who 
     as a young man served as district administrator in the 
     military government of occupied Germany.
       While the White House considers its long-term plans for 
     Iraq, Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, arrived in Moscow 
     this evening for a day and a half of talks with President 
     Vladimir V. Putin. Aides said talks were focused on resolving 
     the dispute at the United Nations. Mr. Blair and Mr. Putin 
     are to hold

[[Page S10642]]

     formal discussions on Friday, followed by a news conference.
       Mr. Blair has been a steadfast supporter of the 
     administration's tough line on a new resolution. But he has 
     also indicated that Britain would consider France's proposal 
     to have a two-tiered approach, with the Security Council 
     first adopting a resolution to compel Iraq to cooperate with 
     international weapons inspectors, and then, if Iraq failed to 
     comply, adopting a second resolution on military force. 
     Earlier this week, Russia indicated that it, too, was 
     prepared to consider the French position.
       But the administration is now saying that if there is a 
     two-resolution approach, it will insist that the first 
     resolution provide Mr. Bush all the authority he needs.
       ``The timing of all this is impossible to anticipate,'' one 
     administration official involved in the talks said. ``The 
     president doesn't want to have to wait around for a second 
     resolution if it is clear that the Iraqis are not 
     cooperating.''

                          ____________________