The US, The UN and Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/backgroundiraq022503.html


A very interesting article over all, but this particularly caught my attention.


I figure that's exactly what's going to happen.



timber

From Timbers quote

"We don't know. A refusal to destroy the Al-Samouds could conceivably strengthen the forced disarmament camp"

Hopefully this will be the final nail in Saddam's coffin.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030225/ts_nm/iraq_usa_strike_dc&cid=564&ncid=1478



Looks like the skirmishing has begun. The Big Show may be closer than many suspect.



timber

Another article.
************************************************
Threats, Promises and Lies

February 25, 2003
By PAUL KRUGMAN

So it seems that Turkey wasn't really haggling about the
price, it just wouldn't accept payment by check or credit
card. In return for support of an Iraq invasion, Turkey
wanted - and got - immediate aid, cash on the barrelhead,
rather than mere assurances about future help. You'd almost
think President Bush had a credibility problem.

And he does.

The funny thing is that this administration
sets great store by credibility. As the justifications for
invading Iraq come and go - Saddam is developing nuclear
weapons; no, but he's in league with Osama; no, but he's
really evil - the case for war has come increasingly to
rest on credibility. You see, say the hawks, we've already
put our soldiers in position, so we must attack or the
world won't take us seriously.

But credibility isn't just about punishing people who cross
you. It's also about honoring promises, and telling the
truth. And those are areas where the Bush administration
has problems.

Consider the astonishing fact that Vicente Fox, president
of Mexico, appears unwilling to cast his U.N. Security
Council vote in America's favor. Given Mexico's close
economic ties to the United States, and Mr. Fox's onetime
personal relationship with Mr. Bush, Mexico should have
been more or less automatically in America's column. But
the Mexican president feels betrayed. He took the
politically risky step of aligning himself closely with Mr.
Bush - a boost to Republican efforts to woo Hispanic voters
- in return for promised reforms that would legalize the
status of undocumented immigrants. The administration never
acted on those reforms, and Mr. Fox is in no mood to do Mr.
Bush any more favors.

Mr. Fox is not alone. In fact, I can't think of anyone
other than the hard right and corporate lobbyists who has
done a deal with Mr. Bush and not come away feeling
betrayed. New York's elected representatives stood side by
side with him a few days after Sept. 11 in return for a
promise of generous aid. A few months later, as they
started to question the administration's commitment, the
budget director, Mitch Daniels, accused them of
"money-grubbing games." Firefighters and policemen
applauded Mr. Bush's promise, more than a year ago, of $3.5
billion for "first responders"; so far, not a penny has
been delivered.

These days, whenever Mr. Bush makes a promise - like his
new program to fight AIDS in Africa - experienced
Bushologists ask, "O.K., that's the bait, where's the
switch?" (Answer: Much of the money will be diverted from
other aid programs, such as malaria control.)

Then there's the honesty thing.

Mr. Bush's mendacity on
economic matters was obvious even during the 2000 election.
But lately it has reached almost pathological levels. Last
week Mr. Bush - who has been having a hard time getting
reputable economists to endorse his economic plan - claimed
an endorsement from the latest Blue Chip survey of business
economists. "I don't know what he was citing," declared the
puzzled author of that report, which said no such thing.

What Americans may not fully appreciate is the extent to
which similarly unfounded claims have, in the eyes of much
of the world, discredited the administration's foreign
policy. Whatever the real merits of the case against Iraq,
again and again the administration has cited evidence that
turns out to be misleading or worthless - "garbage after
garbage after garbage," according to one U.N. official.

Despite his decline in the polls, Mr. Bush hasn't fully
exhausted his reservoir of trust in this country. People
still remember the stirring image of the president standing
amid the rubble of the World Trade Center, his arm around a
fireman's shoulders - and our ever-deferential, protective
media haven't said much about the broken promises that
followed. But the rest of the world simply doesn't trust
Mr. Bush either to honor his promises or to tell the truth.


Can we run a foreign policy in the absence of trust? The
administration apparently thinks it can use threats as a
substitute. Officials have said that they expect undecided
Security Council members to come around out of fear of
being on the "wrong" side. And Mr. Bush may yet get the
U.N. to acquiesce, grudgingly, in his war.

But even if he does, we shouldn't delude ourselves:
whatever credibility we may gain by invading Iraq is small
recompense for the trust we have lost around the world.



http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/25/opinion/25KRUG.html?ex=1047199588&ei=1&en=da881721f9d2ad10

Just read this on CNN online Breaking News

• NO-FLY ZONES: Allied jets attacked two targets in the southern "no-fly" zone of Iraq and one in the northern "no-fly" zone Tuesday after Iraq violated a U.N. resolution by moving a missile system within range of troops in Kuwait, the U.S. military said. U.S. Central Command targeted a mobile surface-to-surface missile system located near Basra, about 245 miles southeast of Baghdad.

I tend to think horses, not zebras. Blix doesn't need to be bought to have an anti-war agenda. Having an anti-war agenda isn't even a bad thing necessarily, but allowing it to interfere with his job as head of these inspections is--in my opinion--a bad thing.

Setanta -- Sorry you're depressed. My mood is one of moral and intellectual disgust as I read many of these posts. The attacks on and assumptions about Blix are the pits, really the pits.

CI -- If I have time, I'll listen to the tape I made this morning of Krugman's interview and list for you briefly some of the things he said about Bush's Big (and Growing) Lie. He was followed by a Reagan admin economist whom I didn't get to hear because the phone rang. I'll see what they both say. Krugman is gloomy, very gloomy, about the economy, as were analysts I heard on NPR just now.

Kara -- As we have all been noting (like Paul Krugman, above) there's a whole lotta lying going on. Best to doublecheck a CNN report in non-mainstream media in this country and in the CBC, BBC and other sources in Europe and Asia. CNN isn't always wrong; just not often completely right!!

I can smell the smoke of war. c.i.

c.i.,
Good and thoughtful column by Klugman. Many thanks.

Kara,
Only was suggesting that crude and simple methods of aggression, like the WTC attacks, will be the modus operandi of the future. Including small UAV aircraft dispensing bio and chemical weaponry - if they have gotten them to the point of dispersal from on high. Nothing sophisticated, just the wafting down of crap. Then, even if it doesn't get into your nose right then, when you mow the lawn? Bingo.

Also, Kara, not sure why you posted that CNN reference to American and Brits taking out surface to air missile sites in northern and southern no-fly zones. Are you suggesting that that was a bad thing?

Right up front here: I am assuming that Saddam has every one of those weaponry systems, if not buried under or near his palaces, then in the tunnels dug out to host a subway system that never happened. Or on the border with Syria or Iran. Somewhere, buried.

I am also assuming that this back and forth between him and foreign media dignitaries, including secret Russian messengers and the UN, signifies nothing. Even if he were to seemingly capitulate in the end, it is only those 'discovered' missiles that would be destroyed. Not all the other ones.

Saddam gives me the creepiest feeling of sleeping with the enemy. Nothing that man says can be believed. Even the obverse is preferrable.

Had we known that certain atrocities against people, humankind, were going to occur, would we not be obligated to try to prevent them from happening? Go back in history.

Never, never, must the values, needs, priorities of a nation-state be put on a higher plane than those of the people. Never.

On Mexico's position:

Mexico made very clear that it supports the US, an ally and friend, in the war against international terrorism. At the same time, the Mexican government finds that a "pre-emptive" strike against Iraq is unjustified.

This has nothing to do with the US unwillingness to work swiftly on a joint inmigration package. Nor with any other element in the bilateral relationship. That's mere journalistic speculation (and a bad one, at that).

This is not a question of bargaining or any kind of "vote selling". It's a question of principles and sovereignity.

Mexico sides with international law, not with the law of the jungle.

Mexico knows that peace is the best asset of any country, and that violence breeds more violence. The war against terrorism can be won without breaking the peace.

Mexico has been receiving diplomatic pressure both from the US and Spain to side with the American resolution in the Security Council. The American diplomats have been wise enough to not dangle the carrot of the inmigration package or the stick of trade or financial paybacks, in case Mexico sides with France-Russia-Germany.

fbaezer, Thanks for that clarification. It's important to have truth on important issues whether they are positive or negative. c.i.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62438-2003Feb24.html




This is not particularly surprising.



timber

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030225/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mexico_iraq_un_1



Mexico's position is not precisely defined at the moment.




timber

fBaezer, I agree with you on your assessment of Mexican-US politics. The amnesty for illegal immigrant workers, or a hoped-for guest worker program, vanished after 9-11 and had nothing to do with the current situation.

Walter

I could find nothing in your link that would make me change my mind about my statement about Dr Blix.

Dr Blix is in an extremely sensitive position with the media and the world hanging on his every word. As the UNs chief fact finder he should never make a public statement except from a carefully worded written text. It is not within his authority to render any statement that is not 100% neutral. He seems to think that he is obligated to say something every time a microphone is shoved in his face. When at the UN giving his report he reads from a carefully prepared text. Every statement he makes should invoke that same sense of professionalism. He is not now providing evidence of that professionalism. Watch him in action and judge for yourselves.

Saddam may have found out what Blix's price tag is.

Oh and before anyone gets too uppity about my dark thoughts about Dr. Blix---remember he is a public official just like Bush and Cheney.

Kara noted:



I no longer believe that to be an untenable position. The world has gotten far too dangerous for its own good, and containment is no longer a possibility.

It seems Saddam is unwilling to destroy his missiles even after Dr Blix's demands to do so. How this plays out will be important to many. c.i.

Kara, I appreciate your feelings, but I just can't see a resumption of hostilities after a 12+ year period of inconsequential resolutions and fruitless efforts to obtain Iraqi compliance with the terms of the ceasefire to be in any way "Preemptive".

The time for negotiation has past. Saddam has the choice of stepping out or being taken out. This is not Bush the Younger's fault, its not Harry Truman's fault, its not Harry Potter's fault. It is Saddam's fault. This Administration did not create this crisis, it received this mess as a hand-me-down, as did the Clinton Administration, Bush the Elder's Administratioon, and even Reagan's Administration, which received it from Carter's Administration and so forth. It took a long while to get here, but here we are. I don't blame just US Administrations either, nor do I exempt The UN from blame. This situation has become urgent, and no longer affords the luxury of being put off. It can be "Forward-Shifted" no further. Bush The Younger has done an incredibly effective job of bungling the "Selling" of what is , but for some of his lame rationaliztions, a just and needful application of force to obtain an overall greater good for Iraq, the region, and the planet. What is done is done. Bush has not only bungled the job of justifying the war, he has brought Europe, The UN, and NATO, among other institutions, into a condition of divisiveness rarely, if ever, seen since the end of WWII. His has been a screw-up of monumental proportion, and will have long-lasting, far-reaching effect in the Community of Nations.

I have little love for or confidence in Bush the Younger. However, this isn't "His" war. Its "Our" war, whether we like it or not. He didn't start it any more than we did, or than did Jimmy Carter. Fortunately, I hope, I have great confidence in our military capabilities. Iraq has no hope of prevailing even in the worst case, which, of course, would be Iraqi use of WMD with attendant civilian tragedy, self-destruction of her own oilfields and other infrastructure, cataclysmic ecologic impact on the region in general, and a protracted urban fight followed by a difficult occupation, accompanied by general turmoil and instability throughout the region and elsewhere. That's vanishingly unlikely. Of course, also unlikely is a swift, relatively bloodless victory which yields warehouses and bunkers and hard drives and file cabinets full of damning evidence, accompanied by a populace joyful at their liberation and committed to the prospect of democraticaly rebuilding their society in astonishingly short order and a damping of tensions throughout the globe. That ain't very likely either.

There will be tragedy, and their will be triumph. There will be other tensions, and there will be friction in Post-Saddam Iraq. There will be a huge refugee issue, which could have implications unpopular with neighbor states. Among all the uncertainties, however, there will be one certainty; Saddam Hussein and The Ba'ath Party will be gone, and those committed to the use of terror, of whatever ideology, will be deprived of at least one sympathetic enabler.

Our Uniformed Forces will hand Iraq to Bush the Younger in a matter of days. It is going to take Bush the Younger, and likely several succeeding Presidents, a long time to bring Iraq fully back into The World.



timber

Timber states:



Agreed, but as we know, that is not an important issue in the entire scheme of things.

Couldn't agree with you more, timber, now that I am off of the wooden fence.