Quelle Blague

New at Reason: President Bush returns to the UN; Ron Bailey says don't bother.

Comments

[Thorley Winston]

"War precipitates clarity as well as confusion, and the war against Iraq already has clarified this: The United Nations is not a good idea badly implemented, it is a bad idea."
- George Will

I agree whole-heartedly. The United Nations is a waste of time, money, real estate, and oxygen. Let's leave the United Nations and be done with it.

[Lefty]

My guess is that if this had turned into a cakewalk and we were welcomed by adoring throngs, Bush and the boys would be sticking it to the U.N. and old Europe every chance they got.

As I understand it, France wants a quick turnover, like was done in Afghanistan. If not, they would like to know what is Bush's plan? They have reportedly said they won't veto the next resolution but instead abstain and hold out their money and troops.

Considering the circumstances, I think they are being reasonable to the point of graciousness. I doubt they would be given the same consideration if the shoe were on the other foot.

[Gene Berkman]

The United Nations ia bad idea. As an institution, it was a consequence of the World War that Ronald Bailey credits for liberating west Europe. Odd how he did not point out the benefits of World War II to the East Europeans who were delivered to Stalin's Empire.
The elder President Bush used the UN to justify his military intervention against Iraq in 1991. The US did not have a defense treaty with Kuwait, so UN authority was the only way Bush could force Congress to go along.
The war hawks denounced the UN before Bush Jr ordered the attack against Iraq, but it was other sovereign nations - France, Germany, Russia etc who objected, not the UN bureaucracy.
Now Bush is going to the UN because he lied to Americans about how easy and cheap the war would be. If the UN turns him down, will the right-wingers hail him again for standing up to the UN? Or will they look at their tax bills.

[Ken]

At the very least, what Bush going back to the UN asking for money and troops is just another example of what he has learned over the years: no matter what you do, no matter how royally you screw up, someone will be there to pull your chestnuts out of the fire. In other words, personal responsibility doesn't mean jack when you've got powerful friends.

I would not be surprised to see the UN tell Bush to take a long walk on a short pier.

[joe]

Though Bush may deserve to be told "Go to Hell," the poor bastards in uniform, stuck in Iraq for a year or more, don't. I hear stories about tankers spending the night on walking patrols with captured AK-47s. Thank heavens Powell, Bush, and Negroponte are so widely admired for their honesty and competence.

[R.C. Dean]

"My guess is that if this had turned into a cakewalk and we were welcomed by adoring throngs,"

By any educated military perspective, it was a cakewalk. We were welcomed by adoring throngs, as I recall. Reports from outside the Sunni triangle indicate that our boys are still pretty popular. We are much more likely to get stabbed in the back (again) by Chirac than by the Iraqis.

Bush going back to the UN is a no-lose proposition for him. Either the UN wakes up to its slide into irrelevance and gives him what he wants, or it doesn't and becomes less of a factor in world affairs. The latter is just fine, too, since the UN is mostly a forum for anti-Americanism these days. And just by asking the UN, Bush covers his flanks domestically regardless of what the UN does.

But to imagine that we need anything that the UN or Europe has to offer in order to succeed in Iraq is lunacy. Europe and the UN are widely despised in Iraq because of their coddling of Saddam, so their participation doesn't help the legitimacy of the next Iraqi government in the eyes of Iraqis. Europe and the UN don't really have any kind of military or other resources that we can't supply ourselves, especially if we start permanently pulling troops out of their European bases.

Just what, exactly, do Chirac and Co. bring to the table that we should be willing to trade anything valuable for?

[Jough]

The U.S. doesn't need the U.N. in Iraq. We only need the UN so we can leave to go fight other wars.

The UN votes to condemn Iraq (under saddam) 17 times but waffles on #18. Then the "rogue" U.S. comes in and does what its good at. Now that the heavy lifting is done we call on the U.N. to come in and do what its good at (diplomacy and peacekeeping, assuming there is already peace). Recently the U.N. (effectively) set a date for Iran to get its act together - Oct 31. Now Iran has to consider that if they ignore the U.N. (as they would if it weren't for the U.S.) the United States may have to come in and act "unilaterally" again. Says the U.N. to Iran, "we'll try to stop them, but what can we do?"

All going according to plan...

A cynic could even call the French opposition part of the plan. They could not openly support the elimination of a regime they had recently been openly supportive of. (Just as we can not attack Saudi Arabia while we have a military presence there. Whats that? We no longer have troops there? Oh...)

In buying into the UN vs. US red herring, the Bush-haters and peace-lovers get sucker punched yet again.

Overly simplistic, or dead-on?

[Thorley Winston]

Gene Berkman wrote:

Now Bush is going to the UN because he lied to Americans about how easy and cheap the war would be.

Refresh my memory ? when exactly did Bush ?lie to Americans about how easy and cheap the war would be??

[Gene Berkman]

Stmack stated "What is accomplished by U.N. and European interference in the War on Terror? Weaken the U.S. and embolden the terrorists to strike again."
After 9/11, France & Germany had been more effective in indicting Al Qaeda operatives than the U.S. has been. They have been cooperative with the US despite their opposition to the unilateral attack on Iraq.
Sure, Libertarians & free market conservatives oppose the European welfare state programs, but it is ludicrous to denounce France & Germany because they opposed an ill-considered war which they, like many Americans, see as undermining the War on Terror.

[Thorley Winston]

Gene Berkman wrote:

After 9/11, France & Germany had been more effective in indicting Al Qaeda operatives than the U.S. has been.

What is the evidence for this claim?

They have been cooperative with the US despite their opposition to the unilateral attack on Iraq.

The definition of ?unilateral? apparently is now ?building a coalition of over thirty nations.?

Sure, Libertarians & free market conservatives oppose the European welfare state programs, but it is ludicrous to denounce France & Germany because they opposed an ill-considered war which they, like many Americans, see as undermining the War on Terror.

Actually the French and Germans probably opposed the war because their governments were the ones helping to prop up the Saddam Hussein regime (both French and German companies had some pretty lucrative deals with the regime and it was the French who helped the Iraqis build their nuclear reactor in the 1980s). What?s ludicrous though is the notion that by eliminating one of the sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East (while moving to extracate ourselves from Saudi Arabia) and making an example of one of the worst dictatorships in the region, we have somehow ?undermined? the War on Terror. Iraq isn't a seperate conflict from the War on Terror, it's another front on the same war and most people understand that.

[joe]

You mean the Coalition of the Billing?

By the way, remember the Predator that incinerated the car in Yemen? They're not doing that anymore; they've had to move the Predators to Iraq.

[Lefty]

Mr. Dean asks "Just what, exactly, do Chirac and Co. bring to the table that we should be willing to trade anything valuable for?"

Iraq has a mountain of debt, some say as high as $350 billion. Something close to $80 billion is owed to France, Germany and Russia (who, interestingly, is still paying off the old Soviet Union debt), the rest to other Mideast buddies and lawsuit judgements. Iraq's GNP a couple years ago was about $60 billion, it's less than half that now.

As Iraq is reconstructed, that debt must be addressed. That's why Bush needs to play nice with Chirac & Co.

http://www.odiousdebts.org/odiousdebts/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=7116

[Jason Ligon]

Lefty,

The spectre of 'odious debt' has likely been the driving force behind France's position on the war in the first place. How else to explain the suddenly doveish behavior of a country so militarily involved on the African continent?

The debt will be declared odious, as should all debt incurred by dictators - after they are gone. It should be understood that a loan to a dictatorship is a personal loan.

[Jean Bart]

R.C. Dean,

"Just what, exactly, do Chirac and Co. bring to the table that we should be willing to trade anything valuable for?"

It must be something, because Bush wouldn't be going to the U.N. begging for money and troops if that weren't the case.

Thorley Winston,

The evidence is in arrests.

As to France and Germany "propping up" Saddam, that is a lie. If your evidence is arms sales in the 1980s, then the US is as complicit as France or Germany given America's specific support of Saddam's regime against the Iranians.

Jason Ligon,

France's position is driven by geo-political concerns, not a pittance like a couple of billion dollars. Since the 1960s French policy has consistently been to unite Europe into a pole with geo-political power; well this has at least been the concern of the conservative Gaullists and neo-Gaullists. Its the French left that has largely been more friendly to the US (witness Mitterand's support of the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait) and its FP designs.

To be frank, all of this talk of French obsession with monetary concerns strikes as similar to the accusation that America invaded Iraq for oil in its veracity.

[Thorley Winston]

Here's a chart on the Iraqi weapons transfers for anyone who is interested

http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html

[joe]

It takes some serious balls for someone who uses phrases like "regimes which supported Al-Qaeda such as the Iraqi Baathists" to demand that another poster show evidence.

[Jason Ligon]

Jean Bart,

I agree on all points, it is the fear of the lone superpower driving the Franco-German love in.

It just feels good to throw monetary arguments toward France, since I have to listen to them all the time. My question is, why does the 'it's all for oil' argument get so much more traction?

Lefty,

I argued that loans to dictatorships should be properly understood to be personal loans to tyrants. Any lending body, including the IMF, should keep that in the back of their minds when wondering when they will get their money back.

As for debt forgiveness in Africa, I am more sympathetic than you might think. The flip side is that no money then goes to into those countries. Monetary gifts will be used to fund armies, so we probably shouldn't bother.

[Thorley Winston]

It takes some serious balls for someone who uses phrases like "regimes which supported Al-Qaeda such as the Iraqi Baathists" to demand that another poster show evidence.

It takes some serious chutzpah to pretend the Iraqi Baathists weren?t supporting Al-Qaeda after we?ve confirmed meetings between top Baathist and Al-Qaeda members and support to the terrorists such as medical care and training.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

[joe]

Critical reading skills, Thorley. Look at that article again, and count the weasel words.

You might also want to check out TNR's cover story on your hero, Tenet.

[J Barstow]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969671.asp#BODY

Wesley Clarck seems to agree with Jough's position (well, not the UN part exactly).

[Thorley Winston]

Wesley Clarck seems to agree with Jough's position (well, not the UN part exactly).

Clark also seems to be under the delusion that there was the massive outpouring of sympathy for the United States that we somehow ?squandered??:

And so, barely six months into the war on terror, the direction seemed set. In Afghanistan and later in Iraq, the United States would strike, using its military superiority; it would enlarge the problem, using the strikes on 9/11 to address the larger Middle East concerns; it would attempt to make the strongest case possible in favor of its course, regardless of the nuances of the intelligence; and it would dissipate the huge outpouring of goodwill and sympathy it had received in September 2001 by going it largely alone.

Methinks the supposed ?outpouring of goodwill and sympathy? which was supposedly squandered was overstated to put it mildly. Fouad Ajami at Foreign Policy.com agrees:

Much has been made of the sympathy that the French expressed for the United States immediately after the September 11 attacks, as embodied by the famous editorial of Le Monde's publisher Jean-Marie Colombani, "Nous Sommes Tous Am?ricains" ("We are all Americans"). And much has been made of the speed with which the United States presumably squandered that sympathy in the months that followed. But even Colombani's column, written on so searing a day, was not the unalloyed message of sympathy suggested by the title. Even on that very day, Colombani wrote of the United States reaping the whirlwind of its "cynicism"; he recycled the hackneyed charge that Osama bin Laden had been created and nurtured by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Colombani quickly retracted what little sympathy he had expressed when, in December of 2001, he was back with an open letter to "our American friends" and soon thereafter with a short book, Tous Am?ricains? le monde apr?s le 11 septembre 2001 (All Americans? The World After September 11, 2001). By now the sympathy had drained, and the tone was one of belligerent judgment and disapproval. There was nothing to admire in Colombani's United States, which had run roughshod in the world and had been indifferent to the rule of law. Colombani described the U.S. republic as a fundamentalist Christian enterprise, its magistrates too deeply attached to the death penalty, its police cruel to its black population. A republic of this sort could not in good conscience undertake a campaign against Islamism. One can't, Colombani writes, battle the Taliban while trying to introduce prayers in one's own schools; one can't strive to reform Saudi Arabia while refusing to teach Darwinism in the schools of the Bible Belt; and one can't denounce the demands of the sharia (Islamic law) while refusing to outlaw the death penalty. Doubtless, he adds, the United States can't do battle with the Taliban before doing battle against the bigotry that ravages the depths of the United States itself. The United States had not squandered Colombani's sympathy; he never had that sympathy in the first place.

Colombani was hardly alone in the French intellectual class in his enmity toward the United States. On November 3, 2001, in Le Monde, the writer and pundit Jean Baudrillard permitted himself a thought of stunning cynicism. He saw the perpetrators of September 11 acting out his own dreams and the dreams of others like him. He gave those attacks a sort of universal warrant: "How we have dreamt of this event," he wrote, "how all the world without exception dreamt of this event, for no one can avoid dreaming of the destruction of a power that has become hegemonic . . . . It is they who acted, but we who wanted the deed." Casting caution and false sympathy aside, Baudrillard saw the terrible attacks on the United States as an "object of desire." The terrorists had been able to draw on a "deep complicity," knowing perfectly well that they were acting out the hidden yearnings of others oppressed by the United States' order and power. To him, morality of the U.S. variety is a sham, and the terrorism directed against it is a legitimate response to the inequities of "globalization."

You can read the rest of the article here:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/story.php?storyID=13852

[Lefty]

Well, Jason, you just opened a can of worms when you talk of repudiating debt. Third world countries, many of them dictatorships, owe about $2 trillion dollars. Take the region of Sub-Saharan Africa, for example. This region pays $10 billion every year in debt service. That is about 4 times as much money as the countries in the region spend on health care and education.

They would welcome your ideas on how to solve this.

[chthus]

Bush should take a hint from Clinton's recent speech and just spend the entire time talking about Bosnia.

[Justin Barstow]

Jough has it right, although everyone else seems to be concered only about the details and not the main situation.

[Lefty]

Jough's main thought was "The U.S. doesn't need the U.N. in Iraq. We only need the UN so we can leave to go fight other wars."

Now, if he's referring to Bush & Co. I won't disagree. If he's talking about this amalgamation of 300 million people who, thankfully, get to vote occasionally then the pre-emptive war party's over.

[J. Barstow]

Not only using the UN to go fight other wars, but using the UN to set those new wars up.

What happens when Iran does not comply with UN demands (courtesy of the French and Germans) on October 31st? Will the US be 'forced' to implement the UN's decisions such as we did in Iraq? We don't need six months to get troops in there, they're already set to go.

Who will be next in the UN's gunsights after Iran?

[chthus]

After Iran, Bekaa Valley, Syria, rest of Lebanon, then and only then Saudi Arabia. Has to be wrapped up by 2008, then leave N. Korea for Rice or Clinton to deal with.

[Thorley Winston]

Jean Bart wrote:

The evidence is in arrests.

Actually that?s only part of the ?evidence? ? another part being the destruction of regimes which supported Al-Qaeda such as the Iraqi Baathists and Afghani Taliban. Moreover, what is your evidence that they have arrested more Al-Qaeda members than the United States and that those arrests have more of an impact then the destruction of one of Al-Qaeda?s supporters in Iraq and the new offensives being launched by US forces in Afghanistan?

As to France and Germany "propping up" Saddam, that is a lie. If your evidence is arms sales in the 1980s, then the US is as complicit as France or Germany given America's specific support of Saddam's regime against the Iranians.

Actually it?s the truth, much as you may wish to deny it. It was the French who helped Saddam Hussein build his nuclear reactor until the Israelis wisely blew it to hell killing only one person ? a French scientist who was working on the project. According to the Stockholm Institute for Peace Research, the French were only behind the Soviets when it came to selling weapons to the Saddam Hussein regime and accounted for about 13% (the Russians contributed 57%) of his total arms he received from 1973 to 1990. Considering as well that they did everything they could to stop an invasion ? including getting the Turks to reverse their earlier decision to let the Coalition use their bases for a northern front with the promise of dropping their opposition to Turkey?s admission to the EU ? it?s pretty clear that they were propping up the Saddam Hussein regime.

[Anonymous]

Thorley:

You're quite right and have documented the lack of goodwill quite well.

The Snopes.com site has many examples of lack of goodwill, including the popular french book which asserted that it was all a coverup and that no planes were used to attack the pentagon.