Posted on 09/05/2003 2:59:15 PM PDT by FairOpinion
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 — Short of troops and facing mounting costs in Iraq, the Bush administration is turning to the United Nations for help, but the U.N.’s record in military operations is not encouraging, analysts say.
SOME CRITICS fear that a bulky, unwieldy U.N. force, divided by language and culture and dependent on the United States for equipment, supplies, intelligence and transportation, would be more hindrance than help and could even drag the Iraqi operation down into a bloody stalemate.
“If it looks like war, then it does not look like the United Nations,” said Kenneth Allard, a retired Army officer and professor of military history at Georgetown University.
Allard was dismayed that the administration had reached a point where it had no recourse but the United Nations. “I look on this as a very clumsy piece of American statecraft,” he said.
It was the United Nations that was kicked around by insurgents in Somalia a decade ago, with a U.N. combat force pinned down at the Mogadishu airport until American Marines arrived. And it was a U.N. peacekeeping force in Bosnia that in 1995 was overrun by rampaging Serb troops who took some peacekeepers hostage, then stormed down the road into Srebrenica — which was under official U.N. protection — and massacred some 8,000 Muslims.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
It's important to keep in mind that such a trivial consideration as whether U.N. troops will help or hurt is pretty much irrelevant to the ongoing debate on the subject.
There are two primary, heavily overlapping constituencies for begging-for-UN-troops.
The anti-Bush constituency wants UN troops for one and only one reason: because the Bush administration doesn't seem all that eager to get them. If Bush doesn't want it, there must be something to it; anything Bush doesn't want to do must be worth doing. An added bonus to this constituency is that they believe that Bush asking for UN troops will be an admission that he is "wrong" (about "going it alone" and all that) and this will embarrass him on the world stage. (And hurt his re-election chances, which is also very important.) This constituency finds the prospect of all that happening to be potentially deeply emotionally satisfying, and that's why they clamor for it.
The anti-American constituency simply wants to screw up US plans, whatever they are or are imagined to be in the most paranoid nightmares. They want UN troops not for help but precisely because they think the presence of UN troops will slow down and thwart all the evil empire, greedy Halliburton type stuff we're doing. Of course, they can't come out and admit that this is the reason for what they argue, because why would we knowingly agree to do something which is acknowledged to be inimical to our plans? But their primary motivation and goal remains to dilute and thwart evil American power.
So you see, nobody arguing for "UN troops" really give's a rat's ass whether UN troops will help (or "help", as they might put it) us in Iraq. It's completely beside the point - or, for many, the opposite of what they actually want.
I hear you. But I think you're giving the U.N. too much credit. A troop of Girl Scouts would be a more even match, so long as they were un-armed [the girls I mean].
Granted, this constituency exists. And to the extent that you advocate doing this because you want to minimize (zero out) US casualties, you differ from the other two constituencies (who care not a whit about that aspect of it).
At the same time, like the other two constituencies, by your own admission your constituency doesn't care about the success of the US goals in Iraq (creating a stable liberal democracy). You're advocating the UN-troops angle not because it will "help" us achieve our goals but because you don't care about 'em (think the goals are hopeless, fool's errand, etc) and just wanna bring the boys home, so you're willing to "hand off" to the UN and let them do whatever they will with Iraq.
And again, that's why I say that a discussion of whether UN troops will "help" us achieve our goals there is irrelevant. The people clamoring for UN troops, yourself included, don't give a rat's ass about that in the first place.
We shouldn't have gotten into this mess in the first place. Any way out beats continuing to suffer US casualties, pouring money we don't have into Iraq and requiring the armed forces to continue to degrade its capabilities by nation building - all in an effort almost certain to eventually fail.
I understand your position on this fully, and how it leads you to a let's-get-the-UN-in-there position. At the same time, what you must understand is that this is not a very persuasive argument to people who actually do care about the eventual success of US goals vis-a-vis Iraq.
Scouts out! Cavalry Ho!
Good, then you'll be able to tailor your arguments accordingly.
A fool's errand, however, is undertaking something which can't be achieved - no matter how pure the motives, sincere the effort or great the sacrifice to achieve it.
I am aware of the general definition of a "fool's errand". But thanks.
"We need to be sure that this business will not happen again. We cannot have soldiers running around naked in the HQ's building. And you will wash the General's table cloth of course? (we used it for a toga) And this with the soldiers throwing the cafeteria chairs up into the trees, this must not happen again... How are the staff to get the chairs down again and if we have no chairs how can we sit down to eat?"
Not made up... An 11 Charlie's finest hour.
Ah, the pyschological trauma you must have caused those poor sons of Odin! They must be weeping in Valhalla at how far their progeny have fallen. ;-]
Reply: "No it's ok. In fact, it's interesting to see so many circumcised men in one place..."
Only if they end up taking the blame for whatever happens - which isn't likely, since the leftist-infested U.N. - and the degenerate French and German dirtbags in particular - are perfectly capable of arguing that leaving Hussein in place to continue butchering his own people by "Government Authority" (On your knees, scum) was preferable to letting them butcher each other in the name of differing versions of Allah (On your FACE, scum - And on the prayer mat!!).
Moreover, it was *not* a fool's errand - we needed to bust up Hussein's intelligence apparatus and - as much as possible - expropriate all the information we can capture, about what they've done to coordinate and facilitate the global Islamikazi terror network. Moreover, we *should* be expropriating their oil to pay for the whole thing - but Bush doesn't seem to have the cojones for that...
However, if there really *is* a way to accomplish the preceding two goals *and* then stick the U.N. with both the responsibility and the consequences, I'm *all* for it... I'm just dubious about whether it's possible...
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.