Monday, April 19, 2004
THE IMPERIAL QUESTION
In between activities this weekend (daughter's birthday party, wife sick, my golf), I managed to come up with something brilliant in response to the fools who think Iraq will be better off by us "pulling out" and turning it over to the UN. I heard Denis Kusinich (sp?) make this outrageous suggestion on Saturday in between cake clean-up and nappy time.
Those that oppose our Iraq policy (Kerry, Kusinich, Dean, DNC, Bush-haters) are constantly saying that we should withdraw our troops and let the UN handle it. It puzzles me in a number of ways:
1. Who IS the UN? WHEN we "withdraw our troops and leave it to the UN" - exactly who are we leaving it to? In my memory, the US is the UN. Every time we need to send troops to "feed the children" or put down some "ethnic cleansing" or whatever, it has been United States military forces who do the work...the UN has no standing army that handle such situations. About the only thing they handle would be - installing their own UN commanders. THAT, I believe, is the real objective of the "call the UN" movement...they don't trust the US commanders to do the job. That's an important statement to think about. What is it about our commanders that makes them so much worse that what the UN would provide? Again, realize that the United States would offer the most technology, troops, know-how, and involvement...do you really think we should risk our soldiers lives (or other "coalition" soldiers lives) to communications and bureaucratic problems. Why?
2. What are the chances the UN would install a market oriented democracy or capitalism? I mean...really...say you were thinking of operating your own country and needed some suggestions on how to run it...would you want the UN to tell you how best to structure your government? Given the fact that the UN Security Council (which would have organizational control in the beginning) would have several members who could maintain a veto power over the implementation of plans...what idea or part of the Iraqi Constitution could you do without in order to get China, France, Germany, or another country to support it? That's called compromise...and you would need that in order to get anything done.
3. What's so scary about a US-led Coalition? This is the big one that has me thinking conspiracy. There's something inherently scary to the "world community" of our leading this coalition I suspect. I get the feeling that somehow all would be right with the world if it were a UN-led Coalition...even though there's no proof anything happening now would be that much better. In fact, as we saw in Somalia, things could be far worse. I think the United Nations sees their own death in the mirror of Iraq. Like a lot of Americans, they suspect that eventually there will be success in Iraq...and the United Nations will be having to see the parade from the sidelines.
In between activities this weekend (daughter's birthday party, wife sick, my golf), I managed to come up with something brilliant in response to the fools who think Iraq will be better off by us "pulling out" and turning it over to the UN. I heard Denis Kusinich (sp?) make this outrageous suggestion on Saturday in between cake clean-up and nappy time.
Those that oppose our Iraq policy (Kerry, Kusinich, Dean, DNC, Bush-haters) are constantly saying that we should withdraw our troops and let the UN handle it. It puzzles me in a number of ways:
1. Who IS the UN? WHEN we "withdraw our troops and leave it to the UN" - exactly who are we leaving it to? In my memory, the US is the UN. Every time we need to send troops to "feed the children" or put down some "ethnic cleansing" or whatever, it has been United States military forces who do the work...the UN has no standing army that handle such situations. About the only thing they handle would be - installing their own UN commanders. THAT, I believe, is the real objective of the "call the UN" movement...they don't trust the US commanders to do the job. That's an important statement to think about. What is it about our commanders that makes them so much worse that what the UN would provide? Again, realize that the United States would offer the most technology, troops, know-how, and involvement...do you really think we should risk our soldiers lives (or other "coalition" soldiers lives) to communications and bureaucratic problems. Why?
2. What are the chances the UN would install a market oriented democracy or capitalism? I mean...really...say you were thinking of operating your own country and needed some suggestions on how to run it...would you want the UN to tell you how best to structure your government? Given the fact that the UN Security Council (which would have organizational control in the beginning) would have several members who could maintain a veto power over the implementation of plans...what idea or part of the Iraqi Constitution could you do without in order to get China, France, Germany, or another country to support it? That's called compromise...and you would need that in order to get anything done.
3. What's so scary about a US-led Coalition? This is the big one that has me thinking conspiracy. There's something inherently scary to the "world community" of our leading this coalition I suspect. I get the feeling that somehow all would be right with the world if it were a UN-led Coalition...even though there's no proof anything happening now would be that much better. In fact, as we saw in Somalia, things could be far worse. I think the United Nations sees their own death in the mirror of Iraq. Like a lot of Americans, they suspect that eventually there will be success in Iraq...and the United Nations will be having to see the parade from the sidelines.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
