New resolution abandoned-- who cares?

Great Debates
1

So now it seems the US-UK attempt to pass a more explicit resolution on Iraq has been dropped. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=514&ncid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030313/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_49

So what?

It doesn’t prevent the US from attacking Iraq.

It doesn’t prevent the UK from joining in.

It doesn’t even prevent justifying the war, since many claim war is authorized under previous resolutions.

So why did Bush and Blain expend so much political capital and so much personal energy to get it?

Why did they stick with it so long after it was clear it wouldn’t pass?

What was gained by the exercise? An argument could be made that Bush and Blair improved the Iraqi position and gained Iraq time that they claim it doesn’t deserve.

So, political analysis time:

  1. Why did Bush and Blair think a new resolution was so important?
  2. Was it worth the effort, given that it didn’t succeed?
  3. What is the net effect on international politics and on the Iraq situation?
2

Is there somewhere I can look at the wording of the proposed resolution (I only caught snippets of it on the news and IIRC it was stuff like ‘Iraq must admit that it is hiding WMDs’ or some such, which seemed a little loaded…)

3

It lends more weight to the theory that this war is just a bald-faced attempt by the United States to seize control of the Iraqi oil fields?

4

Well for starters, the UK’s participation in the “Collation of the Willing” may well be dependent on something that can arguably be called an international endorsement of an invasion. A favorable majority vote in the Security Council could be fairly held up as the necessary international sanction—even with a French/Russian veto and a Chinese abstention. Without that sanction the British forces in Kuwait may end up doing rear area security, and maybe not even that.