>
>Read this interview with Scott Ritter, and see if you think he has any credibility:
>
>

Chris,

I agree with you about Ritter - he flip-flopped badly over the course of an interview I saw with him - didn't have any credibility. But, what are the US's plans for a liberated Iraq? A story appeared in Slate yesterday stating that the Saudis had been told that the plans were to divide the country in to Northern, Central, and Southern regions and to put each under the direction of an American official http://slate.msn.com/id/2079814/ . I realize this might be gossip from ill-willed propogandists, but who's got the real story? I haven't heard any official US government line on what the plans are for a post-Saddam Iraq. Will responsibility for governing Iraq through its post-Saddam phase be entirely the responsibility of the US, and is the US really the best agent for reshaping that region? It looks to me that the shady logic is that if the US invades, it gets to stay and do what it likes to that region (implies doing a bit more than what it has to do). If you look at the opposition from the other security council members and try to ignore the oil, post-Saddam Iraq looks like a rich orphan whose uncles are fighting among themselves to adopt. The other side to that logic is that if that the problem takes care of itself if there is no US intervention - if Saddam is deposed or accepts exile, the US does not get to take over the region. Do you think that the Arab League's pushing strongly for Saddam's exile says anything about their desire for the US to take over this region?