The Democrats believe that the United Nations would be more welcome and effective in Iraq than the United States is:
Clinton and Reed said the expense and political burden in administering Iraq would be made easier with the U.N.'s stamp of legitimacy and help in transferring power to Iraqis.But something tells me that the Iraqi insurgents are not going to hand in their weapons to the boys in the blue helmets and pledge allegiance to Kofi Annan:"I'm a big believer that we ought to internationalize this, but it will take a big change in our administration's thinking," the former first lady said. "I don't see that it's forthcoming."
Seven Spanish intelligence agents killed in ambush in Iraq
Two Japanese diplomats killed in Iraq
Attack on Italian police kills 26 in Iraq
Suicide bomb hits U.N. in Iraq, kills at least 20
Bomb kills 15 at Red Cross in Iraq
No, I don't think that these terrorists will treat an international force with any more hospitality than they treat the Americans. Indeed, it turns out that Iraqi police appear to have coordinated some of the attacks on U.S. or Iraqi targets and that
the insurgency was becoming particularly bloody for Iraqi civilians. Guerrillas launched more than 150 attacks on Iraqi civilian and police targets, killing scores during the Muslim holy month of RamadanSo it looks like the insurgents are largely the remnants of the old Baathist regime that brutalized the Iraqi people for all those years that are trying to terrorize the Iraqis into surrendering all over again. And in any event it's clear that they don't care who they kill in their quest to take control of Iraq, and they care the least of all about killing Iraqis.
Reconstructing Iraq and defeating the insurgents is not a job for the most "international" force, but for the strongest and most resolute. If there are any other countries out there that (a) have the will and the resources to finish the job of stablizing Iraq, and (b) aren't already part of the coalition, then by all means they should join us. But I have no idea who that could that possibly be.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 30, 2003 07:00 AMDon't forget the "fine job" the UN has done in Kosovo. Seven years and counting....
Posted by: Kevin P. on November 30, 2003 04:17 AMAnd the even more kindly, caring, sharing, sensitive and useless job they did in Yugoslavia, furnishing nice well-dressed hostages to the Serbs and failing to make any difference in Srebrenica.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on November 30, 2003 10:00 AMI disagree, it is widely known that Al Queda and Iraqi Baathists are terrified of Jamaican and Icelandic soldiers. I think that Saddam would give himself up in a heartbeat if he knew the Tahitian Navy was looking for him.
Posted by: StarBanker on November 30, 2003 06:16 PMI always laugh when I hear that. Why do the Democrats even think that the UN wants the job? They clearly don't.
When the UN mission in Baghdad was bombed, they pulled out almost all of the UN workers; I've heard nothing about the UN planning any return to Iraq anytime soon.
The "internationalize" bit is just a way to attack the Bush administration and appear "multilateral". It's bunk.
If the US turns over administration of Iraq to the UN, the country will turn into a true long-term quagmire, in which Iraqis suffer while UN bureaucrats line their pockets with oil money.
I think the serious Democrats know this, and know that it would be bad policy, but are willing to say it to gain points with the leftists and to have something that they can use to attack President Bush.
Posted by: Pete Nelson on November 30, 2003 07:50 PM
While it's easy to take potshots at the UN, an international coalition of troups under UN mandate and control would make a big difference in the politics of the occupation. Maybe the UN hasn't been perfect in nation building, but the US has been uniquely awful in doing it. Yes, the UN is still in Kosovo; would the US still be? The UN did a pretty good job in Bosina, the US got it's ass kicked in Somalia. The decision is worthy of careful investigation.
> Maybe the UN hasn't been perfect in nation building, but the US has been uniquely awful in doing it.
Yup, Germany and Japan are hell-holes.
Meanwhile, the ex-colonies in Africa are paradise. See the Ivory Coast for a superb example.
> US got it's ass kicked in Somalia.
The US decided that it simply didn't care. That's worked out well for the Somalis, right?
There are plenty of places for the UN, EU, ANSWER, etc to demonstrate superior nation-building skills, so why the big push about Iraq? Could it be the oil?
Posted by: Andy Freeman on December 3, 2003 08:24 AM