Posted on 04/07/2003 2:43:01 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
With victory in sight, already a new battle is raging within U.S. and Coalition circles as to how a liberated Iraq will be administered.
One press report says that a rift has developed between Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his Pentagon allies, who want a military/American administration, much like MacArthur’s very successful occupation of Japan after World War II, and Secretary of State Colin Powell, who reportedly wants more civil (read State Department) and international (read U.N.) involvement.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has openly stated that he wants the U.N. to administer a post-Saddam Iraq, and the courageous PM has gone on his own little jihad to see this happen.
What are Powell and Blair smoking?
Let’s not forget that Tony Blair and Colin Powell were the leading advocates of the failed U.N. effort to get Saddam to disarm.
Though the effort at the U.N. was completely unnecessary, Blair and Powell insisted there was much to gain by going this route.
President Bush, who reportedly wanted to attack Iraq soon after 9/11, acceded to Blair and Powell. Blair conditioned his support for the U.S. plan on the need for U.N. involvement. As it turned out, opposition to Blair in Britain only grew as the U.N. failed to support the plan to disarm Saddam.
Also, Powell made his support of the war contingent on going the U.N. route.
The U.N. strategy not only stalled American efforts to liberate Iraq, it also has helped foment worldwide hatred against America.
This failed U.N. strategy may even have cost American lives, as it stiffened Iraqi resistance against invading American troops. After all, didn’t the U.N. fail to endorse this “imperialist” effort? Wasn’t worldwide opinion with Saddam’s regime? Saddam’s propaganda machine had a field day.
Clearly, the U.N. route has created tremendous animus toward America. In fact, it may cast a shadow for a long time over America’s military success in Iraq.
Had American troops had a speedier victory, much like the Gulf War, claims that America was an imperialist, bullying power would have been difficult to make.
Now America has been portrayed, particularly in the Arab world, as the villain, with minor civilian casualties exploited and exaggerated.
So, what was the gain of going to the U.N. in the first place? Did we win over world support? Did we show we were more humane? Are we more respected?
The U.N. not only failed in supporting the coalition, it also failed for more than a decade in enforcing its own U.N. resolutions demanding Saddam’s compliance. (In all fairness, Bill Clinton played a role in this appeasement as well.)
Why, then, would we return to this failed organization to administer Iraq? Do we really want the French spouting off, the Russian and Chinese objecting, and once again be subject to all those who opposed American and British efforts?
America and Britain took the lead. It was our blood that was shed in liberating Iraq. We should now be the arbiters of a new and just government for the Iraqi people.
Perhaps it’s time to reconsider the U.N. as being a viable international forum of diplomacy, and find ways to diminish, not increase, its role in world affairs.
Leni
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.