Posted on 03/09/2003 1:36:39 AM PST by kattracks
I have a feeling the sophisticated governments of the Old World have been set up by a Texas cowboy.In a matter of days, the United States and its current allies will invade Iraq and capture Baghdad. It has been evident for some time that this will likely happen without the blessing of the United Nations Security Council. But in his press conference Thursday, President Bush pushed things a step further.
"No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote," he said of a new resolution that would green-light an invasion. "We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council."
Why should Bush want to force a vote he could very well lose?
Some losses are victories in disguise. And Bush is getting ready to use this defeat to finish off the Security Council.
He set the trap in September. In a speech to the UN General Assembly, he challenged the body to remain "relevant" and avoid the fate of the League of Nations. His implication was clear: No international body can survive without the approval and participation of the U.S.
The Security Council responded to Bush's threat with Resolution 1441, which calls for the disarmament of Iraq. But a lot of the hands raised on behalf of the measure, which passed 15 to 0, had crossed fingers. France, Russia, China and others were betting that Bush would be mollified by a pro forma inspection regime in Iraq.
They were very wrong, because they didn't get what Bush is really after.
The President is serious about getting rid of Saddam - but only as a first strategic step in the creation of a 21st century international order. He intends to make the world safe for the U.S. and its friends by imposing a Pax Americana that is based on American values, promotes American interests and relies on American economic and military power.
Under the post-9/11 Bush Doctrine, the U.S. claims the right to defang - unilaterally, and by armed preemption, if necessary - regimes and organizations that he regards as hostile and dangerous.
This is obviously an approach that can't live in harmony with an independent-minded and internationally empowered Security Council.
If the lesser powers, including the permanent members of the council, were willing to go along, the UN could serve as a convenient multilateral forum through which the U.S. would run the world by subcontracting spheres of influence and control to Russia, China, France, Germany and others.
Instead, these powers - with the exception of Great Britain - are aghast at the Bush Doctrine. Only now, more than a decade after the fall of the USSR, have they begun to internalize the meaning of the term "the world's only superpower." Their response is clearly visible - an attempt to turn the Security Council into a rival collective superpower.
Bush saw this coming, and he gave his answer Thursday: "When it comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act. And we really don't need United Nations approval to do so."
The President added that he wants the UN to be a "robust, capable body." By this he meant a body capable of following America's robust lead. If the Security Council reassesses the situation and comes around, swell. If not, well, look what happened to the League of Nations.
Governments that vote against America in the coming Security Council roll call are about to learn - if they haven't figured it out already - that America's cowboy President has led them into a genuine Texas ambush. War is coming to Iraq, but the real shootout is about to take place at the UN corral.
We are a long way from war with Iraq. But the author is right about the UN, though. They are about to be cleared off the table. Conveniently, this has been timed so that any invasion of Iraq can be postponed on the pretext of the "blazing heat of the Iraqi summer." Besides, the national conversation will be about how to replace the UN. Bush has promised to lead a coalition to disarm Iraq -- he's never made any comments on how long that will take. The failure of the vote in the UN won't set up the coalition. Far from it, it will simply create a context where that problem must be dealt with. And that will take us into 2004, easily.
I am beginning to understand Rush's frustration with these press-type people. Never in a million years would this guy believe or understand that Bush is doing everything guided by moral imperative. They are suspicious of Bush because they have questionable character of their own!
Dumb like a fox, he is!
Was surprised to read this in your post. Why do you say that we are a LONG way from war?
Because Saddam Hussein possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction and the means to target them against the civilian population of the United States and its allies.
You been reading the papers, lately? Seems like war is right arond the corner to me.
Bush is getting ready to use this defeat to finish off the Security Council.
Sigh. One can only hope. The process is dragging on. Even if if must take this long, the wait is an agony.
Chafets's tone here is ambiguous, lost between approval and disapproval. "American values." "American interests." "American military and economic power." Perhaps I'm oversensitized from the yammering of the anti-American Left, but that sort of phraseology often covers an implied accusation of provinciality at best, empire-building at worst.
I believe the reason Dubya promotes those things is that they're right and good. I think he, and most Americans, would welcome the emergence of powerful new nations conceived in liberty, and would regard them as friends. If you uphold freedom and justice in your laws, your political structure, and your dealings with other nations, there's no need for Washington to impose "American values" on you; you already have them.
Let's see if we can make that more explicit.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
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.