The U.N. in Iraq....
 

Seems with everyone bitching about the US occupation and calling for the UN, is that even really an option? Kerry stating that he would do it right and turn over everything to the UN.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...raq/index.html

I just can't fathom the UN doing it right, or at least any better. I mean how would the security operations hold up? And please don't tell me that they wouldn't be having the problems that we are, this would easily be worse then Somalia for them. As it goes I think our "occupation" is better suited to deal with the issues of Iraq, we don't have the bureaucracy that they would. Not to mention I don't know how comfortable I would feel turning security over to the Frogs. I mean do you think that if we were to turn over control to the UN that they would be able to bring in the number of troops necessary? Or would they completely scale back security operations? Because that would be bad news bears, especially with civil war looming as it is.

Am I completely off base here?

Yes you are.

Some of the reason the UN would be "better" include

1) The "occupation" (as you rightly describe it) would no longer be seen as a US led invasion

2) Many other countries, who are currently reluctant, would offer support; either troops or logistics

3) This could potentially include "Arabic" countries (like Turkey for example)


The US led occupation does have its own "advantages" such as you describe; namely they don't have to deal with legal niceties (the statement that they want to apprehend or kill Sadr is a good example), and they have a more streamlined command structure.

However, perception is very important here. If the UN get involved, it will help convince the Iraqi people that this is not simply a US effort to destroy their country and steal their oil. Making stupid jokes about WMDs at Presidential dinners does not help this. With the UN in control, you will get increased participation from many other countries. You should never forget that the VAST majority of the world's population, including those of the "coalition of the willing" members such as the UK, Korea and Japan, were against this invasion.

I honestly believe that if you don't see the UN get involved the coalition will start to crumble. It's already happening and will only get worse as more attrocities are carried out by the insurgents against civilians and support staff. This is despicable, but probably inevitable.

Finally one statement should be made (and more importantly, understood). This is no easy solution to this problem.

The unwarranted invasion of Iraq has created a dangerous situation and only the most narrow minded and unrealistic observers believe this has IMPROVED American safety. However, what's done is done. Hussein was undoubtedly a tyrant and the fact that he's been removed is a good thing. I just don't know if it was worth the lives of several hundred US soldiers, many thousands of Iraqi civilians and God only knows how much political and media obfuscation and downright disinformation.

It's dangerous times when a President lets personal animosity affect his direction of your country's foreign policy.


Mr Mephisto

Re: The U.N. in Iraq....
 

Sorry for asking, but who or what are the Frogs?

I think many countries would be interested in preparing troops for a U.N backed mission if only to provide stability to the region which the U.S has failed to do. Could also show the needed allies support for the U.S in less direct ways than at the beginning of the war. A U.N presence could extend a vision of global support to the Iraqi's which is needed.

Of course if the U.S takes umbrage at that notion (current administration) and sees themselves as being undercut or as failures they will have to live with the consequences. Might as well just start calling Iraq, Vietnam right now.

I think it would be a good out for the Americans to relieve some of the image problem they are having,especially in the mideast and also a good chance for Bush to concentrate on America, which he seems to be the least preoccupied with as commander and chief..

One other reason I think the U.N can't get there fast enough was today's development with Bush supporting Sharon's vision of a Palestinian state. The Arab world sees they are excluded from any talks concerning their future which looks like nothing more to the Arab population like the U.S and Israel are conspiring against them.

I said it before and I'll say it again. George Bush lacks any and all diplomatic resolve. Not trying to hijack the thread, but really now, with the Arab world already seething at the Americans, did Bush just assume that not inviting the other member of the peace process, the Palestinian prime minister, that it wouldn't be a concern to the Arabs?

The Americans are not getting any respect and shouldn't expect any if that's the way they choose to do business concerning those in the middle east. The U.N jumping in immediately would be best suited for all involved IMO.

If the UN can't even handle Iraq's "Food for Oil" program without rampant corruption, I seriously doubt that they can handle successfully rebuilding the country any better than we can. I think NATO would be a better choice than the UN, if we were to hand Iraq to someone else.

Way to start a thread off on the wrong foot, Mojo. I distrust the French government as well, but let's leave the childish name-calling elsewhere -- this was like responding to an affirmative action thread with "them niggers don't need nothin from me." :hmm: Not exactly something that encourages thoughtful responses.

Sorry about the frogs comment, I just have no use for the French after how they conducted themselves in the months and years leading up to the war.

I like what you guys are saying about the image change, I never thought of that, very solid point. Outside of that though I think you're putting to much faith in the UN security force.

Also OFKUO as far as the Arab-Israeli thing goes, as far as Arabs are concerned they have no business being involved in the process until they can get over themselves and their hate for Israel, as well as adopt a realistic approach to dealing with the situation. Also I think the US and Israel have stopped dealing with the PA on account of Arafat still being a huge asshat who is really not working to better the situation. Israel was working Abbas but Arafat fucked it up like usual and he quit, then Israel got pissed because they were actually working with him, at least thats how I seem to remember it going down.

Corruption?

You think the UN are the only ones susceptible to this?! LOL

Can you say Halliburton?




Mr Mephisto

Halliburton might be bad. However what the UN did, more specifically the French, Russians, Germans, and Chinese, did is not cool. Cutting deals and lining the pockets of a brutal despot, turning the other way to try and make some paper while millions needlessly died and suffered is horrible.

And "they" have no use for the Americans in how you invaded another country illegally based upon faulty and misleading "intelligence". But let's not get into mud slinging here... :-)

Your original question was a good one.

And it's more than an image change. It's fundamental for more widespread acceptance of the plan and a more equitable partition of the responsibilities.

Well, Arafat is the elected President of the Palestinian Authority. You may not like it, but it's a fact.

The current administration's handling of the Palestinian Peace Process is a joke. And it's HERE they should tread most carefully. They don't have a maniac dictator who invaded other fellow Arab countries, used chemical weapons and snubbed his nose at the UN to blame... All you have in Palestine is an oppressed people who look to the rest of the Arab world for support and sympathy. American one-sidedness in your dealings there is dangerous.


Mr Mephisto

Can you say Iran-Contra scandal?

Can you say Pinochet's Coup in Chile?

Can you say American funding of Hussein in the first place?

Can you say America's funding of Ossama Bin-Laden?



Be careful where you point the finger. You may find yourself looking in a mirror.



Mr Mephisto

What they have is a greedy half assed leader who perpetuates their suffering to line his own pockets, a man who both in the past and now supports and aides terrorism. Not to mention if the Arabs were half as caring you make them out to be perhaps Jordan would grant the Palestinians in the West Bank citizenship and help better them, rather then using them as a pawn. Thats all the Palestinian people are to the Arab world, a pawn, sadly I don't see the situation getting any better.

I've yet to see anything concrete come from the investigations against Halliburton. Facts > speculation.

So, why would you want to replace a corrupt US presence with a corrupt UN presence? Is it just a matter of having anyone except the US in Iraq? If that's the case, let's give North Korea the keys and see what happens.

Well, I'm no fan of Arafat. But simply IGNORING the Palestinian side is just stupid. I'm astounded you think acting that way will improve things.

What do you expect of the Arab fundamentalists? They consistently see "anti-Arab" actions and policies on the part of the US. I don't condone anti-American terrorism (or any terrorism for that matter). But I understand why it happens.

And what you can understand, you can address.


Mr Mephisto

Agreed

Don't know enough either way.

Funding? I mean by all accounts we did help, no one in their right mind would say otherwise. But it was politically convient and in our interest to hook him up. Besides by all accounts the French and Germans did a much better job then us.

I'm calling bullshit on this. We funded Pakistan. They in turn funded the Mujahadeen. It was not like we were cutting checks to OBL himself.

http://www.construction.com/NewsCent.../20040123a.asp

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/20.../index_np.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4163810/

I could go on, but I'm sure you'll just say it's all lies or allegations. If you want to think Halliburton are as clean as snow, then go ahead. I'm not going to convince you otherwise.

Well, for starters it's not certain that any UN presence would be corrupt. You're already showing your bias in that comment.

Secondly, because the UN represent International engagement, International law, consensus and shared contributions and responsibilities. Is that enough?

How about, a US led occupation represents.... erm, well, it represents the US occupying an Arab country. That's the whole problem, isn't it?

No

Right... Very constructive...


Mr Mephisto

At the time, it was him or Iran, so we decided to support the one that hadn't taken our citizens hostage and overthrown a government we supported (not going into whether the SHah was good or bad)

That's like saying all the stuff Japan did in China and in WWII was our fault due to our active trading with them, which allowed them to build up their military.

We were supporting the Mujahadeen against the Soviets.

As far as I know, and what I've seen reported repeatedly was that the CIA funded the mujahadeen directly and this included Bin-Laden.

http://www.newhumanist.com/osama.html
(not sure how unbiased this site is)

"Between 1986 and 1989, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia each sent $500 million annually to fund the mujahideen, and private Saudi benefactors, including Bin Laden, sent a total of $240 million each year. Despite the wartime alliance among the U.S., Saudi Arabia and the mujahideen, following the conclusion of the Afghan war Bin Laden and the mujahideen focused their energies on their next target: the United States." (Ref: http://www.ajc.org/Terrorism/Briefin...id=221&pid=737)

And if you don't believe those, how about MSNBC?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1



Mr Mephisto

First of all, no it's not. Second, my whole point was that it was dangerous to start saying one side did so and so, and that we didn't.

Don't start pointing fingers, as the US (like EVERYONE) is guilty of dealing with evil people to further their aims; either political, economic or simply personal.


Mr Mephisto

The way I understand it we had to funnel the money through Pakistani Intelligence because if we funded the cause directly it would take away from the Arab-Muslim nationalism thing.

/shrug either way I think the point is we're willing to fund those that may later come back to bite us in the ass - which makes it essential to understand what one is doing now for what happens in the future

First I would like to thank you Mr Mephisto for this post as I believe it lays out fairly clearly the advantages of bringing in the UN to handle this situation. However, I must make one minor correction, Turkey is not an Arabic country, its Turkic. The Turks great offense to being called Arabs as I learned the hard way when I made a slip of the tongue while I was over there last summer. Non the less I agree with you on most of the points that you made, but I would like to suggest extending the circle of consideration from the ‘Arabic’ world to include the greater Muslim world. (The Arab world is a considerably smaller community consisting of roughly 20- 22 countries depending on who is counting, whereas the OIC (Organization of Islamic conferences) consists of 56 states) Just for reference there are 191 counties that are members of the United Nations, so the OIC consists of nearly 1/3 of all the present members.

Furthermore, quick history lesson for everyone bickering over the Israeli/Palestinian issue. In 1947 the U.N. passed Resolution 181 which created both the Palestinian and Israeli state. Now, while Israel always points to this resolution as the legal basis for them to exist as a state they unconditionally refuse to acknowledge the part of the resolution which establishes the right of Palestine to exist as a free and independent state. Also, again if you look at your history, Israel has refused to acknowledge almost every other single resolution dealing with the Palestine issue since that point. So, it really should be no surprise to anyone that so many of the OIC countries refuse to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as well, considering that Israel will not live up to the second half of the bargain to which they agreed. ( full the full story go to: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/index.html )

Just as a quick point of reference, I am not trying to take sides here, just trying to shed some light upon the issue. As I have stated before, I think that the best thing to do is to just have everyone pull out of the area and let the two sides have at each other, then, when the dust has settled, go back in a rebuild unified states that are willing to get along. That is the major difference between this war and WW2. After the carnage of WW2 all sides concerned wanted to avoid any further conflict whereas here the price has not yet been high enough to convince people that peace and diplomacy is the way to go. Might I also add that Afghanistan worked so well because the population in that country has been fighting for nearly 30 years nonstop and the people there are sick and tired of the bloodshed and are now willing to come to the table.

Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter.
Cheers,
Publius

Good conversation so far (let's keep it that way :D)

Anyway, I wanted to say something here, specifically regarding:


I would argue that they selectively see "anti-Arab" actions and policies and frequently where they don't exist.

For example, there is frequent distortion and outright lies in the Arab press regarding US actions in the world, including Iraq. I can't name the number of times I've been on an Arab news website and seen the spin about "killing children" or "terrorist actions" when more moderate sources reveal that US troops responded to being fired upon first. Arab news also regularly demonizes the Jews, including spreading lies such as how they use Palestinian babies in blood rituals.

There is also notable silence in criticizing fellow Arabs, even when they are in the wrong. (Salmon Rushdie commented on this when he said, "Where is the Muslim outrage?")

For example, the reason we didn't finish off Hussein in 92' was because the Arab countries in the coalition REFUSED to go with us into Bagdad, even though the man started a war with Iran and Kuwait. Seems that their hatred of having the US invade a Muslim country was greater that their hatred of a man that caused the death of hundreds of thousand Muslims.

The extremists also have snubbed the US when we've sent aid to Muslims in earthquake areas and they have ignored the efforts of many US presidents to bring peace to the middle East (because of course, they won't settle for anything less than the destruction of Isreal).

And there is the heart of the matter.

There is a faction of extremists that WILL NOT STOP killing Israelis and ANYONE who supports them.

Also they WILL NOT STOP killing anyone who is NOT a Muslim in "muslim" lands, (which btw, they want to keep expanding), nor will they accept any law that isn't "Sharia" (which they also wish to expand.)

So while I can agree that there is some oppression, there is also a great amout of Islamic bigotry and hatred that is purely homegrown.

The big reason is that it would have been an open challenge to the Soviets if we had funded them directly. We knew exactly where the money was going, we specifically funded development of weapons for the Mujahedin to shoot down Soviet helicopters, and we brought in CIA operatives to train them for a guerilla war.

The UN would be completely ineffective in providing security in Iraq. There is little cohesion among UN forces. They are too divided and there is little esprit de corps. Each contributed force is primarily loyal to their home nation and their own organizations.

Additionally, the UN has little tolerance for any casualties. Where did they go after the first attack on them in Iraq? What makes anyone think they will be more committed to sticking it out at this point?

Monetarily they are ill prepared to take on the burden and it will inevitably fall entirely on US shoulders anyway.

Agreed. And I'm enjoying a (so far) mature and open discussion.

I should also like to point out that I am not taking sides. I'm PRO-American. It's just that I'm also a little anti-Bush... Unfortunately, a great deal of people fail to see the difference.

It should also be noted that Bush Senior was a great proponent of international engagement, inclusion and a supporter of the UN. It's a pity more of that didn't wash off on his son.


You miss my point.

The actions of the US are manifestly PRO-Israeli and ANTI-Arab. It's gone so far that even "innocent" actions are seen as "anti-Arab" (note my use of quotation marks in the original instance).



And this doesn't happen in the US? Fox News and its ilk never distort the truth?

Please excuse the cynical grin I have right now...


Yet there are many instances where US forces DID kill innocent civilians, women and children. These are, of course, mistakes. But they happen.
I honestly think you're being extremist with those comments, so I won't comment.



Mr Mephisto

Actually, I think you miss mine.

Or possibly we just disagree.

Certainly we have been pro-Isreal for many years, but I also think we have been pro-Arab. I don't think there has to be a conflict between those two positions, but many radical Arabs think you can't be both.

Please re-read what I wrote and tell me how publishing stories about Jews eating Arab babies compares to media spin in the US.

Of course we make mistakes.

But again, compare.

The terrorists use HOSPITALS, MOSQUES, and SCHOOLS for cover and they routinely fire on US troops from crowds of CIVILIANS.

Again, I can't see how anyone can draw a comparison.

Well, since you've made the charge, but given me nothing to respond to, I can only say that I don't think my comments are extremist, but accurate.

Certainly the recent Iranian snub of US (they weren't too proud to take the money, btw) is a matter of record, as is the efforts of Carter, Clinton and Bush to bring about a Palestinian state.

So how are those facts of history "extremist"?

Without getting into a huge Israeli/Palestinian dicussion, I think the Arabs have every right to have a say in their own future, probably alot more say than the Americans should have. The Americans should be relegated to the role they have been in the past, that of moderator, not as dictator. As far as the 'hate' thing goes, that is subjective and swings both ways. The difference is one side openly speaks of the others destruction while the other side silently thinks it..


I don't know who's idea it was to have Bush meet Sharon but as far as the PR is concerned, that was one dumb thing to do. Why would Bush even consider something so onesided? Did he not take into consideration how this would fan the flames of hate? Or is that the modus operandi to continue the occupation in order for validation and justification? ie the Islamist fundamentalists are attacking us so we have to fight back.

It isn't surprising though and kudos for Sharon for pulling the wool over Bush's eyes yet again. The best thing to happen to Israel is America's occupation of Iraq since it is American lives dying for the Israeli's instead of Israeli's. What's next? Iran? Syria? Lebanon?

If the U.N or Nato come in that is bad news for the Israeli's since Big Brother won't be around as much to do their dirty work. Think I'm am being silly? I don't think so. The pre-war rhetoric by Israel was deafening at times,..how they had proof of WMD, scuds pointed at Israel, Israeli's duct taping their windows and showing stores with soldout gasmasks etc,..Since the war started and apparently ended?,..any evidence of that,..any peep from the Israeli's? Nope.

I am not opposed to Israel's existence at all. In fact I support it 100%. I just can't believe that the American's let themselves get sucked into being a mirror image of Israel. Afterall, because of and especially because of Iraq, now the American military tactics are inseperable from the Israeli military tactics, at least in perception, and we all know the value of that. Now the Israeli's have company as being the most hated country in the world especially in the Arab world. How soon until suicide bombers take foot in American cities?

U.N or Nato peacekeepers should be deployed immediately if only for the American soldiers who are being hung out to dry by Bush's micro-management. If not, American casualties will continue to rise, and for what? Certainly not for oil or stability in the region.

:)

OK... Again, all I can say is that you seem to misunderstand what I'm saying.

The fact remains that the "Arab world" perceives a pro-Israel, anti-Arab bias by the US. In fact, I honestly believe that most people do.

THAT'S what I was saying.


You what?

I'm not drawing a comparision. I'm explaining that there IS bias, that the bias is perceived and "more servere" than it may be, that the US should work to address the bias, that the perception of anti-Arab bias explains a lot.

I'm not taking sides. I'd MUCH prefer the US to be in its position (the world's largest super-power) rather than some asshat like Hussein or Kim Il Jong. But I'm not above pointing out some warts...

OK, first of all, as far as I remember and have read, the reason the US didn't "finish off" Hussein had nothing to do with Arab countries refusing to join American forces entering Baghdad, but everything to do with Bush Snr calling off the attacks, and some perceived media spin associated with the attack lasting only 100 hours. Isn't that an item of record?

Secondly, the Iranians DID accept US aid after the earthquake.

Thirdly, Carter and Clinton certainly did more for Palestinians than Bush; at least in my opinion. I doubt many Palestinians or "Arabs" would agree with you that Bush has worked to create a state. :)


My point here was to try to explain why there was anti-Amercianism in the Arab world (not defend or attack it), how America could work to address some of it, why that's important just because of who the US is and what it stands for and why it would be better to engage with the UN in Iraq.

Despite my efforts, and explicit comments, it seems to have been inferred as my taking sides (once again).


Mr Mephisto

From what I have read and heard from some prominent neo-conservatives is that we need to project a stance of strength in order to be respected by the Arab community.

People making that argument claim that demonstrations of strength are the only thing Arabs understand. According to this view, our perceived (actually some claim actual) lack of resolve and action is what has led up to the current events.

I don't agree with their assesement or their conclusion as to the underlying reasons for Arab aggression. I think being antagonistic is going to exacerbate the situation. While it certainly demonstrates our power to ignore large or otherwise powerful groups, I don't think it will result in respect from them. But it is a definite strategy--not an accident.

I also am not surprised that Bush doesn't think or act like his dad. First of all, I believe we can all point to examples of children who intentionally strive to be unlike their parents' thinking because they think it isn't always correct.

I also think that in this particular case, where Bush elder wasn't re-elected, that Bush younger may think it was due to a perceived lack of resolve to do what the country needed (or maybe even wanted) that cost his dad the re-election. His apparent overemphasis on being the tough leader may be a combination of his actual belief that it is the right way to act as well as the fact that it might be a good vote grabber--we'll actually see in a few months. The word on the street, however, is that a lot of people are respecting him for his "resolve" and toughness--so I don't see why he would back off from that stance.

Simply put i'd rather let them all decide for themselves while we mediate - its not our call to tell others what to do when we have few if any strategic interests there.

This is realpolitik not some ideological crap - there is little reason IMO for our soldiers to be dying for others where we have no reason to be in there in the first place.

Hmm not sure how I missed this the first time, but I did and now I would like to offer a clarification if I may. It appears that there is some confusion going on over the mujahadeen. First part of my clarification, it seem that people are interchanging mujahadeen (little m) and Mujahadeen (big M) fast and loose. There is a difference between the two that needs to be made. The United States, through Pakistan, was supporting the Mujahadeen, a political alliance formed between certain tribal leaders (for lack of a better term, they are really more like Italian Godfathers with militaries) of various ethnicity. Now, by extensions, some of this support went to Osama (ass-wipe) Bin-Laden and the mujahadeen (fanatical religious fundamentalist, much like Jerry Falwell) which would later evolve into the Taliban. It is important to note that the mujahadeen is almost exclusively Pashtun, an ethnic group living in South Afghanistan and North-Western Pakistan, as was the Taliban.

Now, in about 1994 the Taliban was formed, with much funding from Pakistan, in large part to fight against the Mujahadeen which controlled most of Afghanistan. Well maybe control is to strong a word, because really the different Godfathers had been involved in a protracted war amongst themselves for control of the country. The Taliban merely capitalized on the internal strife of the Mujahadeen and forced them upwards into the Norther regions of Afghanistan.

Ok so to recap, Mujahadeen equals political alliance between Godfather like tribal leaders, and mujahadeen equals Pashtun religious fundamentalist who later formed into the Taliban. Oh, one final not, anyone ever wonder what became of the Mujahadeen? Ever hear of the Northern Alliance? Yip that’s right, the Northern Alliance is what is left of the Mujahadeen, and here we are supporting them yet once again in their bid to retake the country. Ironic isn’t it? So the real question is, when oh when will we ever learn?

Oh one more thought before I go, if you want to read a very good book on this whole ordeal, go out and pick up “Taliban”, by Ahmed Rashid. Its in paperback so it wont cost you too much and it’s a fairly easy read.

Cheers,
Publius

America gets so many STD's by getting in bed with these dirty dirty people.

*just a friendly discussion*

Not really much more to add but the last three of your points I wanted to address.

1) As I recall at the time, that was exactly what happened. I remember Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the rest specifically saying they would pull out of the coalition if the US went into Iraq.

2) Yes, they took the money but rebuffed us as far as improving our diplomatic relations. I can look up the news stories if you want.

3) While it may be a matter of degrees, Bush did push hard for the road map that both sides promptly wiped their collective rears with.


cheers,

-lebell

Yet another content-free troll from mojo.

I disagree, in fact I'd be willing to bet my post was 1) less of a troll and 2) had more content then your waste of a post above mine.

Historically speaking our dealings with countries have fucked us over, a proper metaphor is "getting in bed with the wrong people". Lets see we have Saddam, the Shah, the mujahadeen, our dealings with the Saud family seems to do a good job of pissing people off, lord knows that school of the America's and all those South American governments we got behind were shady as all kinds of hell, Uzbekistan, Guinea, our weapons deals with those crazies out in East Timor. Also I'm sure I've left some out too.

Next time I guess I will just have to elaborate.

So you promote the out-dated doctrine of isolationism?

Hang on a sec... That would harm US "interests" and prevent American economic domination of the world. Can't have that, can we?


:)


Mr Mephisto

Mojo- I agree your post was not a troll....but, the last part of your post hits it on the head. I think the one liners do have the effect of setting a tone of anamosity. That is certainly not to say they lack content, as I actually find quite a bit of meaning in the majority of your posts.
We will each take what we want from a short statement (like the one above) and twist it to our own designs. Perhaps giving more meat to the opinion will avoid misunderstanding, and help to prevent pissy comebacks.

Just so you understand where I am coming from, I actually depend on your posts for a spesific viewpoint that is underrepresented here. Thus I very much appreciate that you participate.