Who Will Be in Charge of Iraq's Rebuilding After the War?

ToogoodReports.com ^ | 04/10/2003 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[sheltonmac]

The recent chaotic images on the evening news are not shots of Syracuse fans celebrating their NCAA basketball championship. They are not scenes from the French Quarter during Mardi Gras, nor are they clips from MTV's Spring Break 2003.

What we have been seeing are pictures of jubilant Iraqis in the streets of Baghdad, cheering on American troops and toppling statues of their former dictator. I could not help but be reminded of the citizens of East Germany dancing atop the Berlin Wall in 1989.

We have also witnessed Iraqi mobs smashing the windows of homes, stores and banks, making off with as many valuables as they can carry. In this strange turn of events some Iraqis have taken advantage of their liberation and are now engaging in an activity that they had not been able to freely practice under an oppressive regime—looting.

Anyone with at least a fifth-grade science education knows that nature abhors a vacuum. Well, so does a leaderless nation. I know that the vast majority of Iraqis are happy that Saddam's reign of terror has come to an end, but those turbulent scenes are foreshadowing the long road of recovery that lies ahead.

I think it is safe to say that an American military victory in Iraq is assured, and, all arguments for or against the war aside, we need to be prepared for the immediate rebuilding process and our ultimate withdrawal from Iraq. Needless to say, this gives rise to a number of uncertainties, the greatest of which being the role the United Nations will play in Iraq's rebuilding.

President Bush, in a joint statement with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, said, "The United Nations has a vital role to play in the reconstruction of Iraq." Just how vital that role will be remains to be seen, but virtually every one of our "allies," including Great Britain, would like the U.N.'s role to be very prominent.

French President Jacques Chirac has made it known since before the war began just how much he idolizes in the United Nations. He believed it was wrong for the U.S. to go to war without U.N. approval, so it should come as no surprise that he also believes it would be wrong for the U.S. to forge ahead with any reconstruction plans without the U.N. leading the way.

In a recent announcement Chirac said, "We no longer live in a time where one or two countries can control the fate of another country." The implication he was making, of course, is that it is perfectly acceptable for 191 nations to control the fate of another country.

Everyone knows the old saying, "Too many cooks spoil the soup." The same can be said of politics: too many socialists spoil the nation-building process. To put it another way, if all the king's horses and all the king's men failed miserably in their attempt to put Humpty Dumpty back together, then I shudder to think of the mess the United Nations would create with the broken pieces of an oil-rich Middle East nation like Iraq.

Unfortunately, the strong link between the U.N. and Bush presidencies go back more than a decade. Bush the Elder used Security Council resolutions as his justification to push Saddam's forces out of Kuwait in 1991. In 2003, Bush the Younger invaded Iraq only after exhausting all means of gaining the U.N.'s stamp of approval for all-out war.

Globalist tendencies run deep in Washington, and I am afraid that we may end up caving in to international pressure. That would be a mistake. It would also be an insult to the very people we claim to be liberating.

Political control of Iraq should be placed in Iraqi hands as soon as is humanly possible. Any U.N. involvement—that is anything beyond basic humanitarian relief—will only make that goal more difficult to attain.

I say this as a taxpayer, whose tax dollars will be used to rebuild what my tax dollars helped destroy. Of course, any reason I may have for speaking out against U.N. involvement has very little meaning when you consider all the brave men and women who paid for the liberation of Iraq with their lives. For their sake, and for the sake of future generations of both Americans and Iraqis, the U.N. should remain little more than a passive spectator to Iraq's reconstruction.

[sheltonmac]

*ping*

[Enterprise]

"Who Will Be in Charge of Iraq's Rebuilding After the War?"

Well, we know it will take men to rebuild Iraq, so that leaves out the French.

[Support Free Republic]

Raise Your Hand If You Want To Donate To Free Republic!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Enterprise]

"when you consider all the brave men and women who paid for the liberation of Iraq with their lives."

Let us be grateful to those who have liberated Iraq. The author needs to remember though, the primary motivation is the war on terror. That is the priority. Good things like freedom can be a pleasant side-result, but the war on terror is the reason Saddam was given the boot.

[Enterprise]

"French President Jacques Chirac has made it known since before the war began just how much he idolizes in the United Nations. He believed it was wrong for the U.S. to go to war without U.N. approval"

The French like the diplomatic intrigue, the dithering, the stalling, the splitting of hairs. The United States has a somewhat different view of how problems need to be solved. The United States has given a clear warning against terrorism. Those who ignore the warning will be given Saddam treatment, and the French can burn in hell with him.

[ex-snook]

thanks for ping.

Only the 'coalition of the willing' should rebuild for the Iraq people. The quicker the better then 'over and out'.

[JasonC]

Stage one - us. Stage two - the INC. Stage three - the Iraqi people in a free election. Dead last - the UN and anything connected to it.

[JohnGalt]

Rebuilding is as much a myth as ending poverty. While I understand that real conservatives feel obliged to 'rebuild what we destroyed,' we must resist abstractions and demand time limits and withdrawl schedules while agreements are made with the corporations that will do the actual 'rebuilding.'

At best, we leave a Batista type in charge who rules immorally for 20 years, or at worst we get a Korea with an endless commitment.

[ladtx]

Well, we know it will take men to rebuild Iraq, so that leaves out the French.

Don't be so hasty, they'll need waiters.

[Enterprise]

I guess you have to take the good with the bad. There's no sense in having a good meal and a fine wine unless you have a snooty French waiter.

[JohnGalt]

Who are you kidding? The INC is 'us.'

[JasonC]

You know that, and I know that, but neither the CIA nor the State department know that. They don't like all the history the INC tells anyone who will listen, about all their past screw ups and cynical deals. So tell it to them, not to me.