Victory at Risk: The UN in Iraq
By Stanford Matthews
Blog @ MoreWhat.com
In spite of all the efforts of those not directly involved in the war
in Iraq to facilitate a failure by aiding the enemy or favoring
surrender, their has been much positive news presented in recent weeks.
The antiwar, peacenik, surrender at any cost crowd may be in for a rude
awakening as a result of the incredible commitment of the United States
military.
That is why news of possible re-involvement of the United Nations in
Iraq is a bit troubling. While those opposed to victory in Iraq
will attribute UN member opposition to military force in Iraq to the
flawed intel and other mistakes leading up to the war, that would be
putting the horse in front of the cart. The opposition was for
different reasons and the intel flaws were not determined or presented
until after the war began. The reasons for the opposition had
more to do with arrangements with Saddam Hussein by those expressing
opposition to enforcing UN resolutions. The primary reason for
opposition presented by the left in the US had little to do with any
antiwar philosophy. That excuse was used by liberal politicians
to inflame the antiwar segment of the public to cover the failures of
the Clinton Administration. Had Clinton successfully addressed
the Saddam Hussein problem during his Administration, the problem would
not have been left for President Bush.
News reports indicate President Bush and Prime Minister Brown are in
favor of this new UN involvement. Some sources report there are
clerics and others associated with various groups in Iraq who prefer
discussion with the UN rather than with American or British
leaders or representatives. Perhaps that preference is based on
insistence from the United States, Britain and others that the new
Iraqi government is dragging its feet in forging solutions among its
members. The recent defections from the government and its
members' summer vacation are examples of a complacent attitude.
Which brings this discussion to the conclusion to be drawn in this
post. There may be some truth in all the talk of a need for a
political solution in Iraq. But not for the reasons often
given. Just as Democrats have conceded a victory in Iraq would be
a problem for them, the same may be true of members of the new Iraqi
government as well as previous opposition from members of the UN.
The trade, economic or financial scams initiated by Saddam Hussein with
certain UN member countries was the real motive behind opposition to US
enforcement of UN resolutions. The Democratic party's political
agenda was the real motive behind opposing the war in Iraq. And
the failure of the new Iraqi government to solve their problems in a
timely manner can be explained by the selfish motives of members who
stand to gain by prolonging sectarian violence.
If the continued success of current military operations in Iraq provide
enough positive news in September to thwart efforts of the contrived
opposition, victory in the Iraq war may be at hand. But the
question remains whether current plans for UN intervention will
jeopardize the current success. Members of the Iraqi government
who prefer UN intervention may only see it as a way of prolonging the
conflict. While the real reason the US and Britain express
support for the UN may in fact be a concession. T(hat offering may
develop into an Achilles heel for victory.
(SOURCES)
UN Security Council to vote on Iraq mission
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The UN Security Council was expected to vote on
Friday on a resolution to expand the United Nations role in Iraq,
diplomats said.
U.N. council to vote on Iraq resolution
By EDITH M. LEDERER, AP
UNITED NATIONS - U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said a resolution
that would expand the U.N. mandate in Iraq will internationalize the
effort to assist Iraqis in overcoming their internal differences and
bringing neighboring countries together to help the country.
U.N. to
have expanded political role in Iraq
By Patrick Worsnip
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations will see its role in Iraq
expanded to include seeking reconciliation between warring factions and
dialogue with neighboring countries under a Security Council resolution
planned for Friday.
Blue Dogs barking
For the first time during 110th Congress, the Blue Dog Coalition — a
47-member grouping of self-described moderate and conservative
Democrats — defied House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic
leadership on a critical national security issue: Saturday night's vote
on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), where 41 dissident
Democrats, nearly all of them Blue Dogs, provided the margin of victory
for President Bush on the issue of terrorist surveillance.
Clyburn: Petraeus Report May Split Dems
On its website, the Washington Post reports House Majority Whip James
Clyburn said "a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq" by Gen.
David Petraeus "likely would split Democrats in the House and impede
his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war." Clyburn,
in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk,
"said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report,
scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting [their] next
steps." Clyburn noted that Petraeus "carries significant weight among
the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate
to conservative Democrats," and "without their support...Democratic
leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting
a timetable for withdrawal."
Split in anti-war left
By Manu Raju
August 08, 2007
Congress’s failure to secure a timetable for withdrawing American
troops from Iraq has split anti-war activists on the tactical question
of whether to attack Democrats, who now control Capitol Hill.
The split has also underlined accusations among some activists that
MoveOn has abandoned its credentials as an issue-based advocacy group
and now instead provides cover for Democratic Party leaders.
Opinion: The Turn
William Kristol Mon Aug 6, 11:13 AM ET
Washington (The Weekly Standard) Vol. 012, Issue 45 - 8/13/2007 - Hot
July brings cooling showers, / Apricots and gillyflowers, as Sara
Coleridge's doggerel has it. But for the American antiwar movement,
this July brought only a cold drizzle, wilted blossoms, and bitter
fruit.
For the Iraq war's opponents, July began as a month of hope. It ended
in retreat. It began with Democratic unity in proclaiming the
inevitability of American defeat. It ended with respected military
analysts--Democrats, no less!--reporting that the situation on the
ground had improved, and that the war might be winnable..
Blog @ MoreWhat.com
In spite of all the efforts of those not directly involved in the war
in Iraq to facilitate a failure by aiding the enemy or favoring
surrender, their has been much positive news presented in recent weeks.
The antiwar, peacenik, surrender at any cost crowd may be in for a rude
awakening as a result of the incredible commitment of the United States
military.
That is why news of possible re-involvement of the United Nations in
Iraq is a bit troubling. While those opposed to victory in Iraq
will attribute UN member opposition to military force in Iraq to the
flawed intel and other mistakes leading up to the war, that would be
putting the horse in front of the cart. The opposition was for
different reasons and the intel flaws were not determined or presented
until after the war began. The reasons for the opposition had
more to do with arrangements with Saddam Hussein by those expressing
opposition to enforcing UN resolutions. The primary reason for
opposition presented by the left in the US had little to do with any
antiwar philosophy. That excuse was used by liberal politicians
to inflame the antiwar segment of the public to cover the failures of
the Clinton Administration. Had Clinton successfully addressed
the Saddam Hussein problem during his Administration, the problem would
not have been left for President Bush.
News reports indicate President Bush and Prime Minister Brown are in
favor of this new UN involvement. Some sources report there are
clerics and others associated with various groups in Iraq who prefer
discussion with the UN rather than with American or British
leaders or representatives. Perhaps that preference is based on
insistence from the United States, Britain and others that the new
Iraqi government is dragging its feet in forging solutions among its
members. The recent defections from the government and its
members' summer vacation are examples of a complacent attitude.
Which brings this discussion to the conclusion to be drawn in this
post. There may be some truth in all the talk of a need for a
political solution in Iraq. But not for the reasons often
given. Just as Democrats have conceded a victory in Iraq would be
a problem for them, the same may be true of members of the new Iraqi
government as well as previous opposition from members of the UN.
The trade, economic or financial scams initiated by Saddam Hussein with
certain UN member countries was the real motive behind opposition to US
enforcement of UN resolutions. The Democratic party's political
agenda was the real motive behind opposing the war in Iraq. And
the failure of the new Iraqi government to solve their problems in a
timely manner can be explained by the selfish motives of members who
stand to gain by prolonging sectarian violence.
If the continued success of current military operations in Iraq provide
enough positive news in September to thwart efforts of the contrived
opposition, victory in the Iraq war may be at hand. But the
question remains whether current plans for UN intervention will
jeopardize the current success. Members of the Iraqi government
who prefer UN intervention may only see it as a way of prolonging the
conflict. While the real reason the US and Britain express
support for the UN may in fact be a concession. T(hat offering may
develop into an Achilles heel for victory.
(SOURCES)
UN Security Council to vote on Iraq mission
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The UN Security Council was expected to vote on
Friday on a resolution to expand the United Nations role in Iraq,
diplomats said.
U.N. council to vote on Iraq resolution
By EDITH M. LEDERER, AP
UNITED NATIONS - U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said a resolution
that would expand the U.N. mandate in Iraq will internationalize the
effort to assist Iraqis in overcoming their internal differences and
bringing neighboring countries together to help the country.
U.N. to
have expanded political role in Iraq
By Patrick Worsnip
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations will see its role in Iraq
expanded to include seeking reconciliation between warring factions and
dialogue with neighboring countries under a Security Council resolution
planned for Friday.
Blue Dogs barking
For the first time during 110th Congress, the Blue Dog Coalition — a
47-member grouping of self-described moderate and conservative
Democrats — defied House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic
leadership on a critical national security issue: Saturday night's vote
on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), where 41 dissident
Democrats, nearly all of them Blue Dogs, provided the margin of victory
for President Bush on the issue of terrorist surveillance.
Clyburn: Petraeus Report May Split Dems
On its website, the Washington Post reports House Majority Whip James
Clyburn said "a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq" by Gen.
David Petraeus "likely would split Democrats in the House and impede
his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war." Clyburn,
in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk,
"said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report,
scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting [their] next
steps." Clyburn noted that Petraeus "carries significant weight among
the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate
to conservative Democrats," and "without their support...Democratic
leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting
a timetable for withdrawal."
Split in anti-war left
By Manu Raju
August 08, 2007
Congress’s failure to secure a timetable for withdrawing American
troops from Iraq has split anti-war activists on the tactical question
of whether to attack Democrats, who now control Capitol Hill.
The split has also underlined accusations among some activists that
MoveOn has abandoned its credentials as an issue-based advocacy group
and now instead provides cover for Democratic Party leaders.
Opinion: The Turn
William Kristol Mon Aug 6, 11:13 AM ET
Washington (The Weekly Standard) Vol. 012, Issue 45 - 8/13/2007 - Hot
July brings cooling showers, / Apricots and gillyflowers, as Sara
Coleridge's doggerel has it. But for the American antiwar movement,
this July brought only a cold drizzle, wilted blossoms, and bitter
fruit.
For the Iraq war's opponents, July began as a month of hope. It ended
in retreat. It began with Democratic unity in proclaiming the
inevitability of American defeat. It ended with respected military
analysts--Democrats, no less!--reporting that the situation on the
ground had improved, and that the war might be winnable..
posted by Anonymous at 11:22 AM
2 Comments:
Any bet that the rates of child molestation and rape and larceny and extortion go through the roof once the UN has people on the ground?
They couldn't get out of Iraq fast enough the last time. If it is just 'diplomats' this time they will probably flee just as fast. The clerics want to talk through the UN. That can't be good.
Post a Comment
<< Home