Blaming the UN? There you go again...
(Note: I put this in smaller font to save space. I apologize if it's harder to read)
I read Kevin's post w/ his arguments about the UN. Unforutnately, they don't answer the important the question of whether it was correct for Bush to go to war w/ Iraq when he did. Only then can the UN's role can be properly intperpreted. Before that, I'd like to mention 2 minor criticisms. First, I'm always suspect of citing William Safire. That's a guy w/ an agenda and is always willing to do Bush's dirty work (i.e., Valerie Plame). Second, mentioning the word "corruption" without mentioning "Bush Administration" is a huge oversight. Whatever the UN's shortcomings are, the Bush presidency blows my mind. But, I'll get to that later.
As I see it, if you still support the Iraq war, even after everything that's happened, then you must really believe in the UN as a vital organization. Otherwise, you're either a hypocrite or confused. Let me explain. Before Bush decided to invade Iraq, the argument for war had 4 parts (in order of importance): (1) Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), (2) Terrorism (emphasizing 9/11 links), (3) Violation of UN resolutions, & (4) Human rights. Looking back, 3 of those rationales (numbers 1, 2, & 4) have evaporated as more information has surfaced. Let's look at them 1 at a time.
First, until WMDs are actually found in Iraq, it can't seriously be used as a justification for war. Not believing Hans Blix is 1 thing. However, when Bush's own handpicked weapon's inspector says there are no weapons, that's just embarassing for this administration. Also, the Senate intelligence investigation has shown that Iraq's capacity to create WMDs was actually diminishing leading up to the war. (Hmm...Maybe those UN sanctions were working after all) Moreover, Iraq's capacity to create a nuclear bomb, which was Condi Rice's big fear, was so much of a pipe dream that's it's amzaing Saddam Hussein was able to give that impression to anybody. In fact, 30 countries are currently closer to developing nuclear weapons than Iraq was and I'm pretty sure not all of them are friendly. That doesn't even count North Kroea, which already has nuclear weapons. Intelligence failures have been rampant for the Bush administration and maybe being so wrong should be expected. In any event, until WMDs can be found in Iraq, the Bush adminsitration must be admonished for either not knowing better or simply not paying attention to unfavorable facts.
Second, terrorism as a rationale for the Iraq war is an argument that has also been discredited. This is especially true for the belief that Iraq was behind 9/11. The 9/11 commission has concluded that Iraq had nothing to do w/ 9/11. In fact, no substantial links between Iraq & Al Queda have been proven yet. This actually makes sense when you consider who Osama bin Laden & Saddam Hussein actually are. Hussein created a secular Islamic state in Iraq, which is something the more radical fundamentalist bin Laden didn't like. Ideologically, these 2 are incompatible and it makes sense that they hated each other when they met to dicuss a possible alliance. As for terrorism in general, it should be noted that Iraq did have terrorists inside its borders before the war. However, these were terrorists that Saddam Hussein had no control over and wanted to get rid of. They were located in the northen No Fly zone, where Saddam Hussein couldn't reach them. Also, their primary goal was to overthrow Saddam Hussein to make Iraq a fundamentalist, non-secular state. By invading Iraq, these terrorists have inadvertantly been helped in their cause. As a result, Iraq is more of a terrorist state NOW than it was before the war and is in danger of falling under fundamentalist rule.
Third, there was the assertion that Saddam Hussein had violated the rights of his people so egregiously that he had lost the privilege of ruling Iraq (i.e., human rights). This argument would actually have the most sway w/ me. But, I am troubled how this rationale has been bootstrapped by the Bush Administration to justify its actions. If human rights were really that much a concern to Bush and other conservatives, then they should have been more supportive of military action in Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo during the Clinton Administration. Moreover, there are many countires w/ worse human rights records than Iraq & Bush isn't going to help out those people any time soon. (See Sudan) Also, the Iraqi prisoner torture scandal undermines the assertion that the US is looking out for the welfare of the Iraqi people. Some conservatives say these prisoners were terrorists. Reality, as opposed to ideology, suggests that most of the prisoners were either petty criminals or were detained for fitting a very general portrait of a suspected terrorist, which is young Arab male between the ages of 16-35. Geez, I wonder how many of those there are in Iraq.
By now, you may be wondering where Kevin's posting & the UN fit in all of this. Out of the original justifications for war, the only one that still stands is Iraq's violations of UN resolutions. After all, Saddam Hussein violating UN resolutions is the one thing everybody agrees actually happened. Thus, those of you who still think the war was a good idea must really love the UN b/c no other reason for going to war still exisits w/ any authority. However, most people who still support the war don't feel that way & think the UN is irrelevant &/or corrupt. This certainly descbribes Bush, who admonished & deliberatley tried to undermine the UN in the period leading up to the war, but is now purportedly sitcking up for it 2 years later to justify his own failures. Using simplified "Bush logic" (oxymoron?), you either think the UN is an imporatant & vital organization worth fighting for, or you don't. Otherwise, you'd have to admit that the US invaded Iraq to stand up for corruption, it's own or the UN's. You can't have it both ways.
Specifically, Kevin argues the UN Oil-for-Food programs shows that the UN is corrupt b/c it allowed other nations to profit from Iraq not getting invaded. However, this would suggest that tightening sanctions or ending the Oil-for-Food program alltogether were more appropriate to get rid of this alleged loophole instead of going to all out war. This point also ignores the financial stake the US had in invading Iraq. (Here's a hint: Think of a word that starts w/ "H" & ends in "-alliburton") Instead of taking actions to stop anyone from profitting from Iraq, the Bush administration invaded & ensured that only the US, if anybody, could profit from Iraq. So laying out the corruption allegation entirely on the UN doesn't tell the whole story. The Bush administration had its own corrupt reasons for going to war & not mentioning them is silly. I'm certainly not saying the UN doesn't have issues or that Bush invaded Iraq soley for money, but blaming the current situation in Iraq solely on the UN is giving the UN way too much credit/blame. Moreover, arguing that the gaming of a UN program is, by itself, a compelling cause to go to war over isn't that convicing when you think about it. (As for international organizations in general, there was a time when we didn't have them. It was called the 1st half of the 20th century. Not exactly a stable or peaceful time in world history.)
Looking back, the UN was the only one who saw this all coming. They said, "Let us do our work first, b/c if you go to war now & it goes bad, you'll regret it." Going through the accepted process of inspections & debate is important b/c that process' transparency ensures to others that there are legitimate motives behind whatever decision is eventually made. This would also give time Bush to be more credible to the world by getting more international support, like his father did. This Bush simply wouldn't wait b/c he had a "gut" feeling. Personally, I tend to think that Bush would have gone to war even if the UN was allowed to finish its work & concluded all the information we now know to be true. He's not known as a guy who lets inconvenient things like facts & truth contradict his ideology.
The Iraq war is an American contraption & not enough blame has been put on the Bush administration for not knowing what it was getting into beforehand. Some of you may say that it's easy to criticize after the fact. But, it's part of the President's job to know as much of this stuff as possible before taking military action. The fact that so much has been proven wrong suggests that more could have have been known and someone in the West Wing was asleep at the switch. Blaming the UN is the easy way out & is getting tiresome. On one hand, it's argued that the UN is so powerful that it successfully sabotaged the US on purpose. On the other hand, it's supposedly so weak & corrupt that it needs the US to enforce its decisions. Make up your friggin' mind! Overall, blindly blaming the UN w/o any introspection is just another way to avoid accountabilty. That's just sad.
P.S. - Here's a cool story from Slate about Bush's reasons for going to war in Iraq. Here's the link.
I read Kevin's post w/ his arguments about the UN. Unforutnately, they don't answer the important the question of whether it was correct for Bush to go to war w/ Iraq when he did. Only then can the UN's role can be properly intperpreted. Before that, I'd like to mention 2 minor criticisms. First, I'm always suspect of citing William Safire. That's a guy w/ an agenda and is always willing to do Bush's dirty work (i.e., Valerie Plame). Second, mentioning the word "corruption" without mentioning "Bush Administration" is a huge oversight. Whatever the UN's shortcomings are, the Bush presidency blows my mind. But, I'll get to that later.
As I see it, if you still support the Iraq war, even after everything that's happened, then you must really believe in the UN as a vital organization. Otherwise, you're either a hypocrite or confused. Let me explain. Before Bush decided to invade Iraq, the argument for war had 4 parts (in order of importance): (1) Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), (2) Terrorism (emphasizing 9/11 links), (3) Violation of UN resolutions, & (4) Human rights. Looking back, 3 of those rationales (numbers 1, 2, & 4) have evaporated as more information has surfaced. Let's look at them 1 at a time.
First, until WMDs are actually found in Iraq, it can't seriously be used as a justification for war. Not believing Hans Blix is 1 thing. However, when Bush's own handpicked weapon's inspector says there are no weapons, that's just embarassing for this administration. Also, the Senate intelligence investigation has shown that Iraq's capacity to create WMDs was actually diminishing leading up to the war. (Hmm...Maybe those UN sanctions were working after all) Moreover, Iraq's capacity to create a nuclear bomb, which was Condi Rice's big fear, was so much of a pipe dream that's it's amzaing Saddam Hussein was able to give that impression to anybody. In fact, 30 countries are currently closer to developing nuclear weapons than Iraq was and I'm pretty sure not all of them are friendly. That doesn't even count North Kroea, which already has nuclear weapons. Intelligence failures have been rampant for the Bush administration and maybe being so wrong should be expected. In any event, until WMDs can be found in Iraq, the Bush adminsitration must be admonished for either not knowing better or simply not paying attention to unfavorable facts.
Second, terrorism as a rationale for the Iraq war is an argument that has also been discredited. This is especially true for the belief that Iraq was behind 9/11. The 9/11 commission has concluded that Iraq had nothing to do w/ 9/11. In fact, no substantial links between Iraq & Al Queda have been proven yet. This actually makes sense when you consider who Osama bin Laden & Saddam Hussein actually are. Hussein created a secular Islamic state in Iraq, which is something the more radical fundamentalist bin Laden didn't like. Ideologically, these 2 are incompatible and it makes sense that they hated each other when they met to dicuss a possible alliance. As for terrorism in general, it should be noted that Iraq did have terrorists inside its borders before the war. However, these were terrorists that Saddam Hussein had no control over and wanted to get rid of. They were located in the northen No Fly zone, where Saddam Hussein couldn't reach them. Also, their primary goal was to overthrow Saddam Hussein to make Iraq a fundamentalist, non-secular state. By invading Iraq, these terrorists have inadvertantly been helped in their cause. As a result, Iraq is more of a terrorist state NOW than it was before the war and is in danger of falling under fundamentalist rule.
Third, there was the assertion that Saddam Hussein had violated the rights of his people so egregiously that he had lost the privilege of ruling Iraq (i.e., human rights). This argument would actually have the most sway w/ me. But, I am troubled how this rationale has been bootstrapped by the Bush Administration to justify its actions. If human rights were really that much a concern to Bush and other conservatives, then they should have been more supportive of military action in Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo during the Clinton Administration. Moreover, there are many countires w/ worse human rights records than Iraq & Bush isn't going to help out those people any time soon. (See Sudan) Also, the Iraqi prisoner torture scandal undermines the assertion that the US is looking out for the welfare of the Iraqi people. Some conservatives say these prisoners were terrorists. Reality, as opposed to ideology, suggests that most of the prisoners were either petty criminals or were detained for fitting a very general portrait of a suspected terrorist, which is young Arab male between the ages of 16-35. Geez, I wonder how many of those there are in Iraq.
By now, you may be wondering where Kevin's posting & the UN fit in all of this. Out of the original justifications for war, the only one that still stands is Iraq's violations of UN resolutions. After all, Saddam Hussein violating UN resolutions is the one thing everybody agrees actually happened. Thus, those of you who still think the war was a good idea must really love the UN b/c no other reason for going to war still exisits w/ any authority. However, most people who still support the war don't feel that way & think the UN is irrelevant &/or corrupt. This certainly descbribes Bush, who admonished & deliberatley tried to undermine the UN in the period leading up to the war, but is now purportedly sitcking up for it 2 years later to justify his own failures. Using simplified "Bush logic" (oxymoron?), you either think the UN is an imporatant & vital organization worth fighting for, or you don't. Otherwise, you'd have to admit that the US invaded Iraq to stand up for corruption, it's own or the UN's. You can't have it both ways.
Specifically, Kevin argues the UN Oil-for-Food programs shows that the UN is corrupt b/c it allowed other nations to profit from Iraq not getting invaded. However, this would suggest that tightening sanctions or ending the Oil-for-Food program alltogether were more appropriate to get rid of this alleged loophole instead of going to all out war. This point also ignores the financial stake the US had in invading Iraq. (Here's a hint: Think of a word that starts w/ "H" & ends in "-alliburton") Instead of taking actions to stop anyone from profitting from Iraq, the Bush administration invaded & ensured that only the US, if anybody, could profit from Iraq. So laying out the corruption allegation entirely on the UN doesn't tell the whole story. The Bush administration had its own corrupt reasons for going to war & not mentioning them is silly. I'm certainly not saying the UN doesn't have issues or that Bush invaded Iraq soley for money, but blaming the current situation in Iraq solely on the UN is giving the UN way too much credit/blame. Moreover, arguing that the gaming of a UN program is, by itself, a compelling cause to go to war over isn't that convicing when you think about it. (As for international organizations in general, there was a time when we didn't have them. It was called the 1st half of the 20th century. Not exactly a stable or peaceful time in world history.)
Looking back, the UN was the only one who saw this all coming. They said, "Let us do our work first, b/c if you go to war now & it goes bad, you'll regret it." Going through the accepted process of inspections & debate is important b/c that process' transparency ensures to others that there are legitimate motives behind whatever decision is eventually made. This would also give time Bush to be more credible to the world by getting more international support, like his father did. This Bush simply wouldn't wait b/c he had a "gut" feeling. Personally, I tend to think that Bush would have gone to war even if the UN was allowed to finish its work & concluded all the information we now know to be true. He's not known as a guy who lets inconvenient things like facts & truth contradict his ideology.
The Iraq war is an American contraption & not enough blame has been put on the Bush administration for not knowing what it was getting into beforehand. Some of you may say that it's easy to criticize after the fact. But, it's part of the President's job to know as much of this stuff as possible before taking military action. The fact that so much has been proven wrong suggests that more could have have been known and someone in the West Wing was asleep at the switch. Blaming the UN is the easy way out & is getting tiresome. On one hand, it's argued that the UN is so powerful that it successfully sabotaged the US on purpose. On the other hand, it's supposedly so weak & corrupt that it needs the US to enforce its decisions. Make up your friggin' mind! Overall, blindly blaming the UN w/o any introspection is just another way to avoid accountabilty. That's just sad.
P.S. - Here's a cool story from Slate about Bush's reasons for going to war in Iraq. Here's the link.
posted by Jeff at 11/21/2004 03:22:00 AM
2 Comments:
I'm amused to see how readily Jeff can be baited. (Go ahead and channel Jon Stewart... =) It's like anytime someone uses the word "Bush" I can see him bounding out ready to rant. =P
My post on the UN was trying to convey my dismay with how the UN operates and that it needs to be reformed. Are you saying that the UN oil-for-food program isn't a problem?
In reponse to Kevin, I have to admit I am not a fan of the Bush administration. But, I personally don't believe I'm anti-Bush. Here are the things I'm against: incompetence, rejection of logic & pragmatism, moral prostelytizing, & fostering of ignorace. It's not my fault that the Bush administration embodies all these things. At least give me credit for being consistent.
As for the UN, you told me today that your posting did not assert that the situation in Iraq got worse b/c of UN corruption like the oil for food program, requiring the US to enforce UN resolutions. But, here's a quote from your post explaining a consequence of the alleged skimming from that program:
"The Iraq situation escalated because of the inability of the UN to enforce it's very own decrees."
As for the oil for food program itself, I am not denying that there were problems. But, the better question is whether that reason alone is enough to invade Iraq & commit troops & resources there for an undetermined amount of time? Is the oil for food program enough to justify invading even though Iraq's capacity to build weapons was diminishing?
Even if Bush's motivations behind the decision to go to war were purely benign, I have trouble imagining Bush going to Congress & justifying the war on that 1 issue alone. Also, the subsequent scandals about the Bush administration shows that the US isn't so morally upright cabout corruption in Iraq when it's American corruption. A better solution would have been to address the oil for food problem separately instead of declaring everything a failure, which it wasn't, & invading.
Lastly, I still stand behind my assertion that a current supporter of the Iraq war must really believe in the UN in order to stay consistent. The rationales of WMDs and standing up for human rights have been discredited. Terrorism has actually gotten worse as a direct result of the war. The justification of the UN is all that's left to stand behind. Otherwise, these shifting rationales to support the war, even though things like facts & evidence prove each of hem wrong, looks silly. At best, it seems indecisive. At worst, it makes Bush look like a war-mongerer who had let a personal grudge get in the way of his judgment.
Post a Comment
<< Home