What will happen if Bush goes to the UN, essentially hat in hand? I’m predicting a snub. Hope I’m wrong.
On the merits, I think the situation warrants dramatic action. For Bush, appealing to the UN is about as dramatic as it gets.
There is a time and a place for abject groveling. But its going to be tricky. The Bushistas will first go for a post facto endorsement of the US position and actions. I doubt very much that anything like that will be forthcoming. From there, they will scale back to the possible. I doubt very much that the UN will totally scorn the US, there will be some kind of deal, some peacekeeping troops, a bit of cash. France and Germany likely will make conciliatory gestures, kiss and make up, but I don’t see them making the sort of major committment the US really needs.
Oh, if only there had been some sort of organization that we could have gone to before the invasion. Some sort of organization that would have helped put together a broad coaltion to invade and reconstruct. Some organization that could have helped deflect the criticism now being heaped on the US. Oh, well.
Seriously, it’d be good for the US and the UN, but I don’t see how many individual members would benefit. If I were a country like India, I’d run as far away from this as I could. All they’d get out of this is a bunch of dead peacekeepers.
I wonder if we willl actualy go to the UN.
All they’ve said so far is that they “may” do something along these lines. I’m sure that there are diplomatic feelers out already. If they don’t think that they can get UNSC cooperation, I don’t think that they’ll pursue it. It’d be disastrous to try an fail so close to election time. It’d come across as an, “I told you so,” from the UNSC and make the Admin look like they didn’t know what they were doing in the frst place. And, contrary to some appearances, i think that they are trying to avoid such an image.
Yes, Simon, there is indeed a risk, and a big one, hence the preparatory “feeling out” of our “allies”. This must be done with the same gingerly care that porcupines employ when mating. They certainly aren’t going to rush into this unless they are pretty sure of a positive response.
Remember how Fearless Misleader swore up and down that he would insist on a vote on a second UN resolution, jutting his jaw in a manly and forceful fashion and insisting that he would “see everybody’s cards”? Remember how that firm resolution went poof!?
GeeDubya desperately needs UN troops so that he can withdraw American troops, the homeside is getting ugly and angry, and a crowd of pissed off parents and spouse of American soldiers causes Karl Rove to wake up screaming and wetting the bed.
Partisan-wise, it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. But as an American, I have to hope it will work, even as it will give utterly undeserved comfort to the Bushistas. I want our troops home and soon isnt soon enough.
Upside: perhaps the UN can wring some concessions out of his sorry hide, some guarantee not to go off on another such military adventure without UN approval. Of course, some members are likely to press for an admission from the US that it should never have happened in the first place, that we were wrong.
If GeeDubya has the decency to swallow his pride to bring our guys and gals home, my respect for him, such as it were, will increase enormously.
elucidator:
I understand what you mean by having conflicting feelings. As I posted on another thread, I have had my fling with unilateralism and sneering at the UN, and it’s painful to admit that in this regard, I was wrong. I honestly suspect many of my fellow American hawks have similar second thoughts, as illustrated by recent poll numbers showing dwindling support for Bush.
We have got to put an international face on this, and show suspicious Iraqis that their well-being is the will of the world, and that they are not pawns of the U.S.
If Bush doesn’t go to the UN (or NATO) soon, he’s definitely going to lose my vote in '04. And I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that if the Dems nominate anybody credible (sorry, lefties, but I really doubt post-9/11 America will cotton to a dove like Dean), quite a few of my fellow moderates will go Dem (considering the shaky state of the economy).
(As an aside - I’m certainly not a political expert, but if I were a Dem candidate, instead of venturing to the left in response to Dean and Uraniumgate, I’d keep my eye on the middle and talk loud about how Bush alienated our allies, and how I would be much more palatable to our allies in the effort to reconstruct Iraq. In other words, don’t give up being a hawk, don’t go too crazy about “being misled” but tout your diplomatic abilities and your ability to deal with allies with respect, as opposed to Bush).
I pray that our allies and the UN will see beyond the temptation to snub Bush and see that it is in the world’s interest to preserve the victory in Iraq.
We are running paralell threads, GoHeels. See the other.
Based on some things I have read (sorry no cites) I don’t believe it is possible for Bush to admit that he was wrong. Even the ‘retraction’ of the Uranium sentence was blamed on someone else (Tenet).
Of course, I have been wrong before, but if Bush goes to the UN, I will be very surprised, but not surprised enough to vote for him next year.
Bob
Given the nature of the evidence, I think the UNSC will want to twist their knives for a while. Should that come to pass it would be unfortunate for everyone concerned. It will fuel the arguments of those here in the United States that claim the UN is predisposed against the US and therefore useless. I don’t see it that way particularly.
My wife and some friends and I were having precisely this discussion last night. Giving the morale of soldiers in Iraq, and the constant loss of soldiers, Bush is really between a rock and a hard place. Either he does a massive call up of another 100,000 US troops (estimated by some experts) as the level of troops necessary, or he goes to the UN hat in hand. Neither is politically without risk.
If he goes for the call up, it’ll likely to further erode his support domestically. The steady stream of casualties will not go down well with potential family members of soldiers sent to relieve the 3rd ID.
If he goes to the UN, he’s acknowledging his previous unilateralist position as being wrong.
Decisions, decisions.
As important as the security situation is the issue of resources for reconstruction, which I revive in my Iraq Reconstruction thread. The CPA is massively underfunded. Even I can’t get in touch with them on a consistent basis because their comms are shit, to use a stark example of the infrastructural issues.
I get the feeling that if Bush goes to the UN and begs for a bail-out, the response he’ll get is “We’ll wait until the next President gets into office.”
Bush torched a lot of bridges in his rush for war; I can’t really blame France et al for wanting to exact some payback. “Freedom fries” my ass.