This American hawk says to Bush: Get a UN mandate NOW!!!

Great Debates
1

OK, I’ll admit it. I, like a number of my fellow American hawks, sneered at the UN in the painful months leading up to the war. The UN is condemning itself to irrelevance, I thought.

I am not sneering anymore. We need our allies back on our side, and we need to convince the Iraqi people that their well-being is the will of the world, that they are not just pawns of the greedy Americans. Right fucking now.

Swallow your fucking pride, Mr. President, tell your VP and SecDef to fuck themselves, cede some control to the UN, and bring some of our troops home. Don’t wait - do it NOW, before the military victory slips through our fingers.

The US may be the Michael Jordan of the world, but even MJ needed his teammates to win championships.

I am convinced that I have witnessed the limits of unilateralism. As Tony Blair pointedly said the other day in his address to Congress, unilateralism makes fighting wars easier, but it makes winning the peace awfully difficult.

I am also convinced that the real objective in this war is influencing the political culture of the ME toward moderation (not oil, or to fatten Bechtel’s wallets, or to dominate the world). I believe it was also to prove to those folks who think the US is a paper tiger (paging Mr. bin Laden) that we can be vicious motherfuckers, and that we were willing to defy our allies and spill our blood and treasure to combat tyranny. That message has been sent - if nothing else, no one can now say we’re predictable and we won’t get our nose bloodied.

With the presence of a powerful force in Iraq, terrorism supporters like Syria and Iran must be mindful of their Ps and Qs. IMHO, the hudna between the Israelis and Palestinians is mostly due to our presence in Iraq, as well as intense diplomatic pressure by Arab states on Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as overall fatigue for the intifada among the Palestinians and Israelis. And though he has precious little standing among the Palestinian people, Abu Mazen has real political capital with the rest of the world - and along with Mohammed Dahlan - represents the new guard of the PA.

These are real positives that seem to be direct and indirect consequences of the war. We must take advantage of the momentum, which will be completely lost if we fail to change the political and economic dynamic of Iraq.

The time has come, Mr. President, to make a choice between the State Dept. and Defense. This is the perfect time to make the wise choice and choose the former. With Uraniumgate - which has Cheney and Rumsfeld’s fingerprints all over it, the $4 billion monthly cost of the war, a guerrilla war going on, 3rd ID troops’ morale dropping, no WMDs, a hostile media ready to pounce on every misstep, and domestic support going wobbly, the hawks in your administration are looking like shit.

This is a good thing - you now possess the political cover necessary to seek the UN mandate. You will have the support of us moderates who have had our fling with unilateralism and who are realizing that although we’re pretty powerful, we’re not omnipotent. And as you know, Mr. President, the moderate swing voters are the ones who decide elections. And we’re not particularly enamored with the state of our economy right now, so you better know that without serious improvement in Iraq, you’re not going to have our votes.

India, France, Germany, and Russia all say they need a UN mandate before they consider contributing peacekeeping troops. Like we did with Turkey, we tried to horse trade with India to get an Indian division to come over. You saw how successful that was - not very. Understandably, very few governments are willing to put their nation’s troops under a US banner right now. That, Mr. President, is the price of your unilateralist leanings.

The Iraqi people remain suspicious of our motives, and good luck mounting a counter-guerrilla war in the midst of a somewhat hostile population with unrealistic expectations that are sure to be dashed by reality. A REAL international face - preferably with some troops who happen to not be Westerners - needs to be put on this endeavor. Post-haste.

Like a majority of my countrymen, I believe you made the right decision to fight this war. I recognize most of the world disagreed vehemently about this. But the one thing America and the world agreed upon was that Saddam Hussein was a cancer, and we’re all glad he’s gone, even if we disagreed on how he was gotten rid of. Please, for the love of all that’s holy, preserve this victory by FORMALLY internationalizing the peacekeeping effort.

Anybody disagree?

(Mods - not sure this belongs in Great Debates, but I didn’t know where else to put it. Feel free to move it to a more appropriate place if you feel it necessary).

2

I disagree in that i think we’ve had the leverage to get Israel to do whgatever we would like for years. Sec State Baker demonstrated that quite handily a while back.

3

I agree, save for your wildly optimistic assessment of this “victory”.

But its going to a matter of price, isn’t it? The UN is made up of politicians, they can smell the blood in the water, and its Bush’s. He desperately needs them, they, on the other hand, don’t need him.

Those of the Wolfowitz/Perle cabal no doubt share your roseate view of the situation. Hence, they may be tempted to overplay thier hand. They might approach the UN for an after-the-fact endorsement of the “coalition”'s actions. “Splendid show, yanks, thanks awfully, we sure are safer now that a third-rate military power is removed.”

That, in my estimation, has two chances, slim and none. But we have to wonder what level of humiliation the UN will require to pull GeeDubyas nuts out of the fire.

The question of the requisite amount of common decency on Bush’s part doesnt really enter into it, it is irrelevant, this can be seen in entirely political terms. Karl Rove has no doubt already briefed GeeDubya: it doesnt matter how big a turd sundae they serve you, put a cherry on top, grab a spoon and gobble it up! And don’t forget the “Yum! Yum!”

'Cause if you don’t, yer ass is grass. The Dems could nominate Carrot Top and beat you.

4

You’re not speaking for all moderates, obviously, the more I hear of anything to do with Iraq the further right I get. (Temporarily I’m sure.) India, France, Germany, and Russia need a UN mandate before sending troops? Spain, Italy, Japan, and Poland don’t for some reason. And some others too. You’ve said “we need the allies back on our side.” Whose side are they on presently?

5

Their own?

6

Ok then, we haven’t reached the point where we’re all going to let bygones be bygones yet. I believe that will happen, but I don’t see the motivation for “we have to go crawling to the UN, right now, or we’re doomed.”

7

If I may refresh your memory, the Italian and Spanish governments (against massive popular opposition) supported the “Coalition of the Willing” a.k.a The American Adventure.

They, however, have committed risible resources in “support” – so there is no issue of bygones, rather two shakey governments playing through with a minimal real commitment, and therein lies the rub.

Now, as to “bygones being bygones”, you might very well rather stop the navel gazing and look the US behaviour in regards to its allies, above all the post-war moves to freeze out other players. The tit for tat that was trumpted by the simple minded truimphalists. They forgot in the overly simplified appeal to game theory that one has to know the payoffs in order to draw conclusions.

As it happens, the US is not in a pretty position right now, as I will cover in more depth in my own thread, and needs some players with real oomph. Poland can not be accused of having much global oomph.

Now, when it comes down to it, as the unilateralists crowed - I do recall you among them - national interest is what rules a nation, hopefully broadly and intelligently defined.

The issue becomes then, for those nations outside this risible “Coalition of the Willing” Why kick in for an American game that is (i) going very badly indeed (ii) that the Americans loudly and arrogantly claimed they could do on their own (iii) contains serious risks if one gets involved.

Resources, pay attention carefully to the issues, the issue is lack of resources.

8

Considering how many bridges the Bush Administration torched in the run-up to the Iraq war, what possible incentive would the non-Coalition nations have to lend us a hand and get us out of our mess?

9

Now, now. I would never “crow.” I have a proven history of not crowing. UN involvement was always a possibility, but I’d thought it better to be decided by the Iraqis themselves, together with the coalition (or independently, whichever) and that might happen.

I agree. I assumed that the OP was mostly about the US casualties suffered since May 1 or so, and the escalating guerilla attacks. We’ve already got all the “willing” we’re going to get, the others aren’t going to be moved to share our current burdens out of sympathy.

Whether or not Poland has oomph…I know they have troops, they’ll be taking over administration of one sector in Iraq in September. They’ve done reconstruction work in Iraq before, in fact they are supposedly counting on that to give them a base of goodwill among the people. Which puts them a few notches above us already. This is good.

10

Yes, now tell us how many troops.

Yes, the North, which is largely the Kurdish area as I recall which already operates on its own. A Polish administration is a laughable concept given the resources they have to bring to bear.

A drop in the bucket.

11

The Polish sector will be in southern central Iraq. It’s probably better to call it the NATO sector, with Spanish and Eastern European troops numbering around 9,000 and Poland and Spain sharing administrative control.

I believe we asked India to command a part of northern Iraq but they declined. The 101st airborne is there now, not much hostility there, peacekeepers and contractors could replace them.

12

These are projected numbers right? Or do the y include non-military personel?

All weekend, the boob tube’s been saying that of the 19 countries w/ troops there, 17 of them split the remaining thousand. US w/ 147,000 and UK w/ 12,000 and everybody else together totalling 1,000, for a grand total of 160,000.

13

I wouldnt be to optimistic about Russia and France joining the effort. The US screwed them over on oil deals made with SH’s regime. I think at least any request from said nations will have to be met with “unscrewing” them over.

14

SimonX the numbers I gave were definitely projected figures, military personnel, “by September.” But some of them are already in place and so the 1,000/17 figure looks off. Italy alone had promised over 2,000 and they started to arriving in June.

I’m sure they had some way of arriving at that figure though…

15

Go Heels:

I’m sorry to have to tell you that I think your OP is one of the most pathetic things I’ve read in a long time.

Yeah, you sure did, in the face of massive protests to the contrary. It was an arrogant and ill-informed course of action.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, the Iraqis are just pawns of greedy Americans; as are most of those who supported the war to begin with.

Oh, if only you, the Bush adminstration, etc., had had the foresight to perceive those limits before committing US troops to this mess.

I am not at all convinced of your first point, which, as far as I can tell, you must take on faith. Regarding the question of the US being a “paper tiger,” well, I think you’ve missed the boat entirely. Bin Laden and his followers believe the US is a “paper tiger” because Americans are unwilling to sustain significant loss of life in war. Americans don’t have the stomach for seeing their soldiers wounded and killed in battle.

Bin Laden and his cronies could not have been surprised by the outcome of the invasion, and are well aware of the technological superiority of US forces, but that superiority only reinforces the claim that Americans don’t dare to risk their lives for what they supposedly believe in. You’re OP is a case in point. Approximately 37 US soldiers have died since the “end” of the war thus far – a drop in the bucket, compared to Iraqi losses – and already the US is crying for mommy and running back to the UN – an organization they despised and insulted before the war – like a whipped bitch.

The only message the US government has sent to bin Laden thus far, as far as I can see, is that it is willing to lie to its own people to go to war, to use its overwhelming military superiority to beat up on weak third world dictators, and to cry uncle and run back to mommy as soon as it has to make a real sacrifice or begin to truly face the consequences of its actions.

Well, I don’t know about Syria, but appears as if Iran has continued to covertly pursue its nuclear weapons programs, and it just recently announced the development of a new middle-range missile capable of striking Israel.

If the US doesn’t have the belly to finish what it started in Iraq it will only strengthen the resolve of Syria and Iran against the US; and running to the UN after all of this only serves to show that the US doesn’t have the belly.

*Yeah, well, it’s not like they weren’t warned in advance.

You know, this passage almost makes my head swim. So – is that what this entire thing was about then? A “*fling with unilateralism *,” along with a need to display US “omnipotence”?

Besides, as far as I’m concerned, Bush does not have the political cover to seek a UN mandate. Not domestically, where everyone must surely remember the disregard with which this administration has treated the UN and its institutions, violating its mandates and ignoring the will of the community of nations; and certainly not abroad, where such an action would only serve to convince most folks that US policy-makers are doubly hypocritical.

No. The US is responsible for this mess, and I say the US should clean it up. After all, the UN is nothing but an irrelevant debating society, remember? They can’t even keep their own cafeteria under control. (If you don’t believe me, ask december.)

16

Yes Im pretty sure that most despots around the world will see that:

Iraq = next to none or no WMD’s = Loose
N Korea = probability of REAL WMD’s = Win

Iran will be racing for Nukes now that they see how well they work.
Didnt Syria propose a treaty banning WMD’s in the ME?

17

And if we can’t? Keep bluffing and blustering hoping for a miracle to stave off civil war and chaos?

As loathe as I am to wish an underserved foreign policy success upon the Bushistas, the lives and well-being of untold thousands of Iraqis is on the line.

Time to go before the UN, hold our empty bowl up and beseech in our most modest and becoming tones:

“Please, sirs, can we have some more?”

18

I’d agree with that assessment of America if we’d actually gone back to the UN in screaming hysterics. We haven’t yet. The US did get a “clearance” resolution from the Security Council which recognizes the coalition’s authority in Iraq, a while ago, and there was never a time when the US wasn’t saying that there’d be no role for the UN in Iraq. The concept of our verbal abuse and dismissal of the whole process from Day 1 is mere opinion, unless we’re talking about the American people themselves…that’s different. The OP illustrated the public view.

19

GoHeels, I’ll give you a break and congratulate you for being willing to face the situation as it is and has it has to become. That puts you way ahead of Bush & Co. You’re correct in pointing out that the situation has global effects and has to be dealt with on a global basis, and that the arrogant unilateralism that got us into it won’t help anything in the future.

But it seems to me that’s the reason they’ve been unable to get any real support with this approach - they’re still fundamentally unilateralists seeing this as a US situation that simply needs more cannon fodder under US command. There’s no reason any other government would commit anything real to that “vision”. They knew better beforehand and they know better now - it won’t help stabilize and secure Iraq; it’ll only make things worse.

No, what I’d guess they’re all waiting for is more than the simple groveling the stalwart elucidator would love to see. Instead, they’re waiting for a genuine, thoughtful, credible renunciation of unilateralism and arrogance from Washington, along with a real embrace of globalism of a sort that can really help. The deterioration of the security of the US forces is the leverage they need. Now, it’s a race: the strength of Bush’s arrogance and myopia vs. the strength of his desire to remain in office past 1/20/05.

But, frankly, don’t expect a complete reversal of attitude of the size that’s needed - Iraq will remain a US problem for as long as Bush is President, and a UK problem for as long as Blair is PM (somehow Howard has weaseled out). The next event to look for is Blair’s ouster and the withdrawal of UK forces in their areas of control by his successor, to be replaced by “Old Europe” troops, presumably in the next couple of months - how will Bush react?

20

Mr. Svinlesha,

I probably ought to qualify my stance as a “unilateralist.” I felt that the US should have done everything possible to gain UN approval and support for the war. I cringed that Rumsfeld became the face associated with American diplomacy instead of Colin Powell, and we needlessly alienated our Western European allies.

Nevertheless, I felt that the unanimous approval of Resolution 1441 vindicated the US position that Iraq was not cooperating with UN inspections, and if “serious consequences” did not mean war, then it proved that the UN that failed to enforce multilaterally for the good of the globe is just as ineffective as there not even being a UN.

That said, I was, and still am, convinced of the legitimacy and utility of the war. I just hate how the US went about it, and I think the lack of resources that could have been had with multilateral support is now biting the US in the ass right now.

To address your strident reply to my OP, my desire to seek UN help is NOT motivated by American troop losses (although I ache when I hear about a soldier dying as well as innocent Iraqis dying). My cousin is over there around Mosul, and I’ve prepared myself (just as I know he prepared himself) as best I can for the worst. And quite frankly, the rate of deaths in Iraq isn’t horrible, when viewed in perspective (i.e. Iraq ain’t Stalingrad or Vietnam).

The liberation of Iraq, and the goal of a free, moderate Middle East is worth a heavy cost, both in lives and treasure, IMHO. Don’t you dare accuse me of “not having the stomach” to deal with loss.

My desire for the US to seek UN support is motivated by a desire to prove to the “undecided” Iraqis that their well-being is a shared world vision. And, the mission has changed. The major combat is over, and the action requires different skills. There needs to be a transition to forces equipped to do the job (for example - I suspect morale is down because the 3rd ID is a fighting force, and they need to be replaced with MP units and leave Marine units in there to fight off attacks. You wouldn’t drive a Porsche on the mountain leg of a car rally; you would switch to a SUV). Additionally, by enlisting Iraqi militia, it puts Saddam loyalists in a bind in the battle for the hearts and minds of the people - if the loyalists start killing large numbers of Iraqis while things generally improve, then a larger portion of the population will bond against what may be organized but certainly isn’t a large number of loyalists and outside fighters.

I remain convinced that the real reason for the war was a worthy one - to change the political culture of the ME region and empower the moderates of the region. Whether the war will achieve this goal is not yet determined. I believe it is crucial to get multilateral involvement for this vision, which was the point of the OP. If that means surrendering some autonomy, or displaying humility, I’m prepared to do that, and I hope Bush is too.

But your reply is beneath contempt - essentially, you’re saying that you’d prefer Iraq to sink into chaos and civil war to score precious political points against the evil U.S. That’s pathetic.