The US, The UN and Iraq

Nice Avatar, dys ... is that near Moab? Hard to tell from the tiny picture.


UNR1441 DOES NOT REQUIRE, in fact, does not address, a separate authorization for the use of force if Iraq is seen to be in Non-Compliance. The "Second Resolution" is a nicety wished by some nations usually resistant to ANY use of force anywhere any time ... a somewhat incongruous stance on the part of France, in view of her Ivory Coast involvement.

Oh, well ... that's the French ... their one constant has always been their inconsistency. Contrariness seems to be a characteristic of The Body Politic of that nation (I can think of few nations with a more egregious record of self-serving than France ... despite a military establishment not much larger than a couple of US Divisions, a US Airforce Wing, and a few boats, she fancies herself an equal to The US ... Gallic Gall, I guess). Apparently, to the French, if an idea is not a French Idea, its not a good idea.
The Germans are and always have been a pretty ungrateful lot, more concerned with internal affairs over the past half-century-plus than World Developments ... and God Knows Germany has internal affairs aplenty, both related and unrelated to the ongoing assimilation of her former Soviet Client Eastern brethren. Given Germany's past century and a half or so of history, its probably not altogether a bad thing she is hesitant to use military force anywhere anywhen ... she's shown a clear tendency to get carried away in that regard.

By any reading of UNR1441, a Finding of Noncompliance is by itself authorization, though not necessarilly mandate, of Military Intervention. That said, I doubt any independent US/GB action is likely, and I anticipate developments between now and Jan 27 will bring about a lessening of resaistance to the use of force among the members of The Security Council. It would seem to me Saddam is taking advantage of what he sees as disention in the ranks of The UN, hoping lack of clear consensus will inhibit effective action against him. He may well be in for a surprise. His continuing defiant arrogance may be the proximate cause of his undoing.

Military action may become moot; recent talk of abdication/exile seems to be gaining currency, and bears cultivation. Troubling, however, is that I sense Saddam to have something of a 'Martyr Complex", and may be more inclined to death than dispossession. He is a man consumed by power, and very possibly unable to contemplate a life and a world in which he has none. While he seems to have iron-fisted control of Iraq, it is however possible there are rumblings beneath him, and close advisors may be among themselves looking for a peaceful way out, a conclusion to the matter which does not involve smart bombs with their names on them, whether or not they are willing to broach thesubject to Saddam. A coup is not altogether out of the question, though faced with major obstacles and not seemingly of high prospect.

Still, the spectre of assured destruction must loom larger in The Iraqi Mind with each inflow of military might into the region. What little hope The Iraqis have they draw from their perception of contention and divisiveness in the ranks of her announced opposers, a condition the Iraqis hope and strive to maintain.

I see the next Major Event to be the Jan 27 UN announcement, sure to be negative. A "Final Deadline" may be expected to be proclaimed some short time thereafter, backed by a consensus of The Security Council. Additional "Smoking Gun" evidence will no doubt turn up in the coming week ... I fully expect some sort of "Bombshell" discovery to be revealed with just enough time between "The Discovery" and "The Announcement" to allow a bit of discussion among Security Council Members. Faced with resolve, and the on-scene presence of an obviously ready-to-act, overwhelming military threat, Iraq may, one way or the other, select survival over Saddam. I sure hope so.



timber

Setanta

Blair's appearance before the select committee was not some quircky facet of ancient parliamentary procedure, its is something this Labour government has introduced as an attempt to counteract 'spin'.

This was the pm's second or third appearance, scheduled every 6 months.

Not sure what you mean by party manager in the house.

I wish the USA would institute a similar forum. Then the spin meisters would be cut out of the loop. Very necessary in today's politics - where politics is the only job 24/7.

France has declared they will be against military action in any case. Germany has already declared they will not be involved in military action against Iraq. The Russians and China are toss ups as to any support for military action. I doubt, under the current circumstances of the appearance of Iraqi cooperation, any UN nation will support military action. c.i.

c.i. other than USA and GB - I assume GB will support the USA even though they have a majority of its people against the war and have recently shown a reluctance to support a war. They still are sending troops - Bush must have Blair by the goolies. I think there must be pictures somewhere. Even Blair's own party is going against him and he is steadily losing support.

Don't be too surprised if near-term new developments alter that perception of compliance. "The current circumstances" are quite subject to change. As for German and French aloofness, I would anticipate their respective concerns for future commercial leverage in the region will grease the skids beneath their resistance if and as the situation tilts toward a certainty of military action. Neither wishes to have any part in the baking of the pie, but both may be counted on to line up and demand their slices when it is served.



timber

BillW

he doesnt need public support

public opinion is fickle. It will change once Saddam is gone.
cabinet collective responsiblity determines none are likely to resign, except perhaps Clare Short.
Parliament doesnt matter. There won't be a substantive vote, and even it there was, a majority in the house would carry it.

Providing we WIN the anti war opposition will soon fade into history. Remember the anti war Serbian faction?

Sorry if I sound cynical, I hate war but I'm not a pacifist.

I think this describes a lot of the participants in this debate, on both sides of the debate.

Pretty much pegs me, I'd say.



timber

Quote:
I hate war but I'm not a pacifist.

I think this describes a lot of the participants in this debate, on both sides of the debate.

yeppers

Can't describe you, describes me and I'm unique - a loner so too speak! Ha/bw

Saddam is a master at playing the political world game. He pulls and pushes the strings about as perfectly as any virtuoso. I wouldn't be surprised at anything Saddam does.

master or not he will be removed, exiled or executed

hopefully, the sooner the better. Welcome to A2K 911 :wink:

Well, Boss, i've probably confused this with "question time in the House," which i had believed to be an institution of government (unwritten, based on tradition) in England. I could be wrong, although i'd rather you'd not spread that around, i do have a reputation to maintain.

As for party manager, i was thinking in terms of the growth of the office of Prime Minister from the days of Walpole to the present--Bute, Liverpool, Wellington, all of these gentlemen found it increasingly difficult to manage government without having an effective party manager in the house. When Marlborough and Godolphin ran Queen Anne's government for her, their lack of understaning of a party system lead to a takeover by Harley. Basically, my take is that the PM needs to be the party manager in the House (even if s/he is working through whips) to assure the strength of the government when it comes to a vote. Horace Walpole (a sly and acid tongued old beggar--don't you think?) seemed to have learned well the lessons of the fall of the Marlborough/Godolphin government, and was very adroit at manipulating the House, and of forging and maintaing a party-based voting bloc.

Or maybe not . . .

911, I'm not so sure about that! With the world opinion against any military action in Iraq, there's a pretty good chance Saddam will outlast GWBush in office. c.i.

timber,

I agree that many nations that resist will only do so until war is inevitable.

BTW is there anyone else out there who is like me? I love war, am callous about its effects but dislike a lousy casus belli tremendously.

Craven says:



And why is this true. They all know that we will kick Saddam's butt and when it comes time to doling out the bootie, they want a share and will receive none it they aren't a part of the "coalition".

It's not just that. Greed is a motivation but another facet is that once the war starts we don't need their moral support and won't be as eager to court it. At that point of the tango they will need to reposition themselves.

cic imp
I dont think so because there are too many military resources already immobilised around the Med and Red Seas