Posted on 05/21/2004 3:20:02 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
The short, easy and wrong solution to the problems in Iraq is to turn them all over to the United Nations and urge other countries to help. This basically is Senator John Kerry's response to any "What would you do?" questions. He and others who criticize President Bush for going to war without the UN's permission and the support of the international community offer only this egregiously useless solution. The ignorance, misconceptions and faulty judgment displayed in such thinking are appalling.
To begin with, we have the support and participation in Iraq of some 30 countries. Not incidentally, the majority of eastern European countries are with us. They remember what it was like to be under the brutal domination of the Soviet Union.
Secondly, it seems that no one quite understands what the consequences of turning all this over to the UN would be. The UN is totally incapable of fighting a war. It can assemble troops--most of whom have not trained together--for "peacekeeping missions," usually in areas where there is no peace. Then there is the problem of UN procedures, which enable one of the veto-holding countries--for whatever tawdry reason of trade--to block any action that most other nations would want to take. Result: impotence.
Finally, a good look at the record of Lakhdar Brahimi, UNSecretary-General Kofi Annan's choice as the man to bring democracy to Iraq, shows how wrong the UN can be. Brahimi was hailed by the large anti-U.S. faction as a skilled, seasoned diplomat, in contrast with the U.S. and other administrators now in charge. The first demonstration of Brahimi's seasoning was his statement that Israeli policy is "poison in the region." He later also managed to be offensive to the Palestinians. Some seasoning. Why we ever agreed to let Brahimi in is inexplicable. William Safire of the New York Times explained the situation best: Brahimi's strategy is "aligning the UN with those Iraqis who--having been cured of crippling despotism--now feel free to throw their crutches at the doctor."
The daily attacks on coalition forces are, of course, designed to force our withdrawal and the admission that we can't bring democracy to Iraq. It seems that John Kerry would virtually accept this capitulation, and the UN would almost certainly go along.
Fact, Not Fiction
Our rebuilding efforts in Iraq are giving millions of Iraqis a vastly better present and the certain prospect of a far better future. The abuses committed by the six or seven very rotten apples out of the more than 135,000 American service people there are overshadowing all that has been accomplished by the professional skills and personal bravery of these troops. The sacrifices these brave men and women make on our behalf is what we should be talking about.
The fact that we're in the middle of a presidential election campaign explains the constant degradation of our armed forces' accomplishments. The seeming delight of the Administration's opponents in exploiting any reverses adds to our heavy burden.
Lest We Forget
Sometimes we can look back at a historic event and apply its lessons to the present. In May 1940 everything was going wrong for the Allies in World War II. The brown stain of the Nazi Wehrmacht covered most of Europe. France--with a huge army that its leaders were afraid to use effectively--had been broken, and the road to Paris was open. In England Winston Churchill had just become Prime Minister, but he was opposed by many of the most senior of his fellow Conservatives. His only real support in the War Cabinet came from two Labour members of the new coalition.
During a critical three days of nearly continuous War Cabinet meetings, it became apparent that France was determined to capitulate. Foreign Minister Lord Halifax repeatedly urged that Britain open negotiations with Germany, possibly using Benito Mussolini or Franklin D. Roosevelt as an intermediary. Through his matchless oratory, Churchill finally carried the day against such a move.
The notes of Hugh Dalton, Minister of Economic Warfare, show that Churchill led the entire Cabinet to understand that if Britain were to seek peace the first thing "the Germans would demand [would be] our fleet--that would be called ‘disarmament.'… We should become a slave state, though a British government which would be Hitler's puppet would be set up--‘under [Sir Oswald] Mosley [a prominent British Fascist] or some such person.'" Churchill reminded his opponents that Britain still had immense strengths. He closed with what was to become one of his most famous sentences: "We shall go on and we shall fight it out, here or elsewhere, and if at last the long story is to end, it were better it should end, not through surrender, but only when we are rolling senseless on the ground." There was no further talk of negotiations.
We could agree that the circumstances of 1940 were vastly different than are those of 2004. But the crucial lesson here is that giving up is no solution. Nothing but chaos and brutality would follow any U.S. withdrawal. We have already made a great many concessions in Iraq. We have agreed to a June 30 transfer of sovereignty; we have accepted in vital posts some not-yet-reeducated Baathists; and we run great risks by granting the UN too much authority.
Now is the time to make it clear, as President Bush has done, that we are totally committed to winning the war against the terrorists in Iraq and that we will stay the course until a free Iraq accepts the burden of its sovereignty and has the strength, with our help, to take its place among the democratic nations of the world. We cannot lose our resolve. We must always remember that if we want peace with freedom for ourselves and our friends, we sometimes have to fight for it.
Churhill's words have never been truer.
The U.S., even after the fall of Poland and France, still felt the European war wasn't America's, apparently the same as many Americans feel about the war on terrorism, even after 9/11. It's going to take another Pearl Harbor to 'awaken the sleeping giant' again, but our next Pearl Harbor may cost us 100,000 American lives.
Go CAP!
John Kerry apparently forgets that the UN was invited to fully participate in this venture. Heck, the unanimous vote on Res. 1441 gave everyone the impression that the UN was on board. What's even more dispicable, however, was the actions of both Chirac and DeVillapen...who besides voting in favor of the use of force, also gave private assurances to both Bush and Powell that they would be on board if Saddam obstructed in anyway.
It was only when push came to shove, that DeVillapin announced to Powell's dismay, that the French couldn't support the use of force. These people didn't just drop their support for us in this effort...France became in active opponent, as Chirac and DeVillian traveled the world coercing others to do the same. And what did we expect, since both they and the UN have been found to be in the hip pocket of Saddam and the scandalous UN, Oil for Food Program.
When you look at this scandal, the promised future oil contracts and the huge debt owed many of these countries because of their illegal trade with Saddam...in violation of the UN's own trade embargo, the corruption and fraud is unending. And yet, instead of condemnation from Kerry over these events, he has the nerve to say that it was Bush who mislead the American people and that we should practically prostrate ourselves to bring these nations back on board. Wow! Some American President.
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.