Victory at Risk: The UN in Iraq
Posted in Bush, Terrorism, Lebanon, Iraq, war, wordpress, Religion, syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, U.N., United States, Russia, Britain, France, India, Iran, Islam, Muslim, Military on August 10th, 2007 by Stanford Matthewscrossposted at:
.
In spite of all the efforts of those not directly involved in the war in Iraq to facilitate a failure by aiding the enemy or favoring surrender, their has been much positive news presented in recent weeks. The antiwar, peacenik, surrender at any cost crowd may be in for a rude awakening as a result of the incredible commitment of the United States military.
That is why news of possible re-involvement of the United Nations in Iraq is a bit troubling. While those opposed to victory in Iraq will attribute UN member opposition to military force in Iraq to the flawed intel and other mistakes leading up to the war, that would be putting the horse in front of the cart. The opposition was for different reasons and the intel flaws were not determined or presented until after the war began. The reasons for the opposition had more to do with arrangements with Saddam Hussein by those expressing opposition to enforcing UN resolutions. The primary reason for opposition presented by the left in the US had little to do with any antiwar philosophy. That excuse was used by liberal politicians to inflame the antiwar segment of the public to cover the failures of the Clinton Administration. Had Clinton successfully addressed the Saddam Hussein problem during his Administration, the problem would not have been left for President Bush.
News reports indicate President Bush and Prime Minister Brown are in favor of this new UN involvement. Some sources report there are clerics and others associated with various groups in Iraq who prefer discussion with the UN rather than with American or British leaders or representatives. Perhaps that preference is based on insistence from the United States, Britain and others that the new Iraqi government is dragging its feet in forging solutions among its members. The recent defections from the government and its members’ summer vacation are examples of a complacent attitude.
Which brings this discussion to the conclusion to be drawn in this post. There may be some truth in all the talk of a need for a political solution in Iraq. But not for the reasons often given. Just as Democrats have conceded a victory in Iraq would be a problem for them, the same may be true of members of the new Iraqi government as well as previous opposition from members of the UN.
The trade, economic or financial scams initiated by Saddam Hussein with certain UN member countries was the real motive behind opposition to US enforcement of UN resolutions. The Democratic party’s political agenda was the real motive behind opposing the war in Iraq. And the failure of the new Iraqi government to solve their problems in a timely manner can be explained by the selfish motives of members who stand to gain by prolonging sectarian violence.
If the continued success of current military operations in Iraq provide enough positive news in September to thwart efforts of the contrived opposition, victory in the Iraq war may be at hand. But the question remains whether current plans for UN intervention will jeopardize the current success. Members of the Iraqi government who prefer UN intervention may only see it as a way of prolonging the conflict. While the real reason the US and Britain express support for the UN may in fact be a concession. T(hat offering may develop into an Achilles heel for victory.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
(SOURCES)
UN Security Council to vote on Iraq mission
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The UN Security Council was expected to vote on Friday on a resolution to expand the United Nations role in Iraq, diplomats said.
U.N. council to vote on Iraq resolution
By EDITH M. LEDERER, AP
UNITED NATIONS - U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said a resolution that would expand the U.N. mandate in Iraq will internationalize the effort to assist Iraqis in overcoming their internal differences and bringing neighboring countries together to help the country.
U.N. to have expanded political role in Iraq
By Patrick Worsnip
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations will see its role in Iraq expanded to include seeking reconciliation between warring factions and dialogue with neighboring countries under a Security Council resolution planned for Friday.
Blue Dogs barking
For the first time during 110th Congress, the Blue Dog Coalition — a 47-member grouping of self-described moderate and conservative Democrats — defied House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership on a critical national security issue: Saturday night’s vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), where 41 dissident Democrats, nearly all of them Blue Dogs, provided the margin of victory for President Bush on the issue of terrorist surveillance.
Clyburn: Petraeus Report May Split Dems
On its website, the Washington Post reports House Majority Whip James Clyburn said “a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq” by Gen. David Petraeus “likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party’s efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.” Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, “said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting [their] next steps.” Clyburn noted that Petraeus “carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats,” and “without their support…Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.”
Split in anti-war left
By Manu Raju
August 08, 2007
Congress’s failure to secure a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq has split anti-war activists on the tactical question of whether to attack Democrats, who now control Capitol Hill.
The split has also underlined accusations among some activists that MoveOn has abandoned its credentials as an issue-based advocacy group and now instead provides cover for Democratic Party leaders.
Opinion: The Turn
William Kristol Mon Aug 6, 11:13 AM ET
Washington (The Weekly Standard) Vol. 012, Issue 45 - 8/13/2007 - Hot July brings cooling showers, / Apricots and gillyflowers, as Sara Coleridge’s doggerel has it. But for the American antiwar movement, this July brought only a cold drizzle, wilted blossoms, and bitter fruit.
For the Iraq war’s opponents, July began as a month of hope. It ended in retreat. It began with Democratic unity in proclaiming the inevitability of American defeat. It ended with respected military analysts–Democrats, no less!–reporting that the situation on the ground had improved, and that the war might be winnable..
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Wake Up America, Gone Hollywood, Church and State, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Nixon’s legacy included the milestone of opening dialogue with China and historic visits by the West to the mysterious and isolated region of the world. Carter’s often criticized administration had what appeared as a Middle East peace effort that came closer than any other at resolving the conflicts. Reagan convinced the Soviet Union to ‘tear down this wall’. Much about President Bush these days points to the near obsession of American Presidents to push for their legacy in the fading hours of their Presidency. Beyond victory in the war in Iraq, President Bush’s latest call for Middle East peace talks presents among other things, his search for a legacy.
Understandably, some in the Middle East are wary or even suspicious of Tony Blair’s involvement. Of all the people on the planet likely to have a role to play in the search for Middle East peace, Tony Blair probably has the best chance of providing a sense of genuine sincerity and honesty to the task at hand. But the baggage of his history with President Bush and some indications he bears his own separate agenda on solving this never ending crisis may sabotage his ability to assist before it really begins.
Abbas may be viewed as a wild card in this entire scenario. His power or influence over any part of the conflict may be suspect and the call for elections just one more attempt by a weak player to muster languishing support.
And no one should overlook the complications provided by the most suspected opposition to any peace in the region, none other than the President of Iran. A meeting between Iran, Syria and Hamas is nothing more than a strategy session of those opposing peace efforts in the Middle East.
The classic mixture of opposing agendas by all involved in Middle East ‘relations’ are no more an optimistic forecast for resolving problems now than at any time in the past. No one should be hopeful this early in the recent moves to hold talks on peace in the Middle East or anywhere else on the planet.
First, it is interesting to think about candidate reactions to news items. The following news item would be a case in point for Barack Obama. If the author, an academic writing in or for a paper apparently in Lebanon, did not run this idea by John McCain, also in the article, or Barack Obama before publication, knowing their reaction would be fun.
Sometimes it almost seems more prudent for all the major countries of the world to simply withdraw from any interactions with the Middle East and similar zones of insanity. Y’all wanna kill each other, fine. You want to keep blaming each other for the problems you face and not help each other out, fine. From the major powers on the planet to all lesser influences and organizations like the UN, most of the violence and problems faced by the Middle East only seem to be exacerbated by the rest of the world’s involvement. At one time or another all countries in the Middle East seem to be ‘playing’ other countries in the world to get what they want. And the arrangements keep rotating around the region shifting advantage from country to country. All the while the richest nations in the world are pouring billions into the mix and only a few ranking members of failing governments appear to receive the benefit.
The first reference in this post is from June 17th and outlines the fact that Americans are certainly not pleased with Congress. Based on polling data over many months, the President, the House and the Senate have record or near record low approval ratings from the public. Of course polls don’t tell the whole story and not all decisions should be made as a result of polling numbers. The importance of the polls here is a trend that applies to a long period of time. The statistical information can be significant as an indicator that all is not well. In addition to the midterm elections and the deluge of comments and demands communicated to the White House and Congress this year and last, one should be able to expect more appropriate response from elected officials. Not that they should be expected to find a perfect solution to satisfy all people but they should at least display the professionalism and intelligence in working together to solve issues.
Although the next reference is considerably older than the rest it is still valid. The point made closer to the beginning of this post indicated those favoring surrender in Iraq refused to accept the fact that everyone involved in the decision to go to war share the responsibility with the President and he alone should not bare the burden. If you glanced ahead you understand the point. The flawed intel everyone likes to mention was neglected by Congress in their assessment of a vote on authorizing the US to go to war. So why then does the surrender crowd continue to disregard this fact? Could it be they view it as harmful to their interest in bashing the President? Could the bashing be mostly political? Does the surrender crowd have an understanding of how damaging their surrender speech is? There are many questions and not much in the way of answers from those favoring surrender.
The articles referenced below are just a reminder of how central to all things MSM is the war in Iraq. The Dems have continued to make it a central theme of their campaigns. It is mentioned in nearly every speech, press release and news conference.
These trends continued right up until and after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the announcement of the new war on terror. Some of the relationships based primarily on economic relationships were emphasized during the run up to the war in Iraq. Germany, France and Russia were at odds with the US at the UN not just on philosophical grounds or opposition to an impending war. Commencing a war in Iraq would disturb many ‘economic’ arrangements as well as obvious detriments and concerns.
If the previous post does not show you that Senator Harry Reid is a contradction then understand he said they would not cut and run in Iraq or raise taxes. Right at the moment the tax thing is secondary. He said they would not cut and run. Senator Reid would you kindly explain the report below if you are not planning on cut and run?
Over the past seven months, Bush administration officials have quietly toured the country, trying to persuade businesses that rely heavily on immigrant labor to join a little-known program that would spare them from embarrassing federal raids if they voluntarily handed over their workers’ documents so the government can scan them for fraudulent information….