Bush considers US-led government for Iraq

US president George Bush, armed with congressional authority to oust Saddam Hussein, is reviewing post-war plans for Iraq that could include deploying American troops to stabilise the nation until a new government is formed.

But his anti-Iraq resolution at the United Nations met stiff resistance yesterday.

The pace of diplomatic and military planning quickened after a 77-23 vote in the Senate gave Bush authority to use military force, if necessary, against the Iraqi president. The House easily passed the same resolution on Thursday, and Bush planned to sign it next week.

“The president was very pleased to receive such an outstanding and overwhelming bipartisan show of support from both houses,” White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

Bush hopes the votes in Congress will build momentum for a tough new Iraq resolution at the UN Security Council, where France, Russia and China, all permanent members with vetoes, are balking. A US compromise failed to swing any votes yesterday.

The White House has said Bush has not decided whether to use military force. But defence officials said the Pentagon has ordered the Army’s V Corps and 1st Marine Expeditionary Force to deploy headquarters staffs to Kuwait, The Washington Post reported on its website. It was the first non-routine dispatch of ground troops to the Persian Gulf region, the newspaper said.

Iraq, meanwhile, confirmed in a letter that it was ready to allow UN weapons inspections to resume, but failed to sign off on agreements with the United Nations.

“We are not surprised that once again the Iraqis want to delay and deceive,” said Richard Grenell, spokesman for the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte.

In Washington, the daily White House briefing was dominated by questions about Bush’s plans for a post-Saddam Iraq after The New York Times reported plans to install an American-led military government that would control Iraq and its valuable oil wells.

White House officials said the idea, modelled on the post-war occupation of Japan, was among scores of possible scenarios but was one of the least likely to be adopted.

“That’s not what’s envisaged,” Fleischer told reporters.

If Saddam were gone, Bush would be more likely to use troops to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and help rebuild the nation’s infrastructure as democracy took hold, senior White House officials said.

“The United States will not cut and run,” Fleischer said.

“The administration is working to find ways to help achieve stability for Iraq and for the region. And we are considering a variety of ways to do so with our international partners, with the possibility of the United Nations” being involved as well, Fleischer said.

Several administration officials said Bush’s top advisers, including Condoleezza Rice, his chief national security adviser, would oppose a military government. Among their concerns was that occupation would inflame Iraqis and Muslims in other countries.

Secretary of State Colin Powell sounded more open to the idea, telling National Public Radio the administration was looking at such historic models as the US occupation of Germany after the Second World War and a US military government in Japan at the end of the war.

He said if US troops were to go into Iraq, there would be “an immediate need for some presence until you could put in place a better system”.

But anti-Saddam Iraqis and the Arab League objected.

“We were told by American officials that they want a broad-based Iraqi government with no direct American role,” said Hamid al-Bayati, a representative of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shiite-led opposition group.

Bush did not directly address the issue, although he said at an event promoting US efforts in Afghanistan that the United States had “a history of liberating, not conquering”.

Since Bush has not decided on a course of action, White House officials said they could not estimate how long the troops would remain in Iraq, how much the deployment would cost or how risky the operation would be.

“It’s safe to say it would cost millions and last months,” one official said.

At the United Nations, American diplomats offered to remove from the proposed resolution a threat to use “all necessary means” to compel Iraq to disarm. The resolution simply would threaten consequences, although the United States would be able to interpret that as meaning force, said a US official.

But French and Russian diplomats rejected the offer.

“I think the member states want a two-stage approach: send in the inspectors (and) if they get into trouble, if it fails, come back and we will pass the second resolution,” said UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.