Posted on 11/28/2002 3:20:24 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
As philosopher George Santayana so famously stated: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." With that in mind, it is fitting in these times of impending war against Iraq that we revisit some of the mistakes made during the first Gulf War. While the victory of 1991 was decisive and the war itself brilliantly and bravely fought, and while the technical objective, the liberation of Kuwait was achieved, nevertheless bad policies at the time set the stage for today's crisis.
In a nutshell, President George Bush Sr., in the planning, the conduct, and in the aftermath of that war, made the colossal mistake of placing the objectives of the United Nations over those of the United States. Following the August 1990 Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, Bush Sr. stated these objectives in a Sept. 11, 1990 address to Congress:
"When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the United Nations founders"What Bush Sr. meant by "new world order," a term he used dozens of times during this period, is a fascinating topic worthy of a separate examination. It should also be noted that, as a matter of history, the UN founders were part of a committee made up mostly of communists and headed by the first Secretary General to the UN, accused Soviet spy Alger Hiss.
In preparing for the Gulf War, Bush Sr. set a dangerous precedent when, in violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, he looked to the UN rather than to the US Congress for authorization. As a result of this abrogation of US law by the Bush Sr. Administration, the constitutional authority of the American people to decide issues of war through their elected representatives was transferred to the un-elected, non-representative UN bureaucracy. This would have the additional effect of turning the American military, technically, into a mercenary force.
Bush Sr., while proceeding to adhere to UN resolutions regarding the rules of engagement during the war, made the enormous blunder of stopping short of entering Baghdad and deposing Saddam Hussein at a time when doing so required little effort. The result was yet another strange UN inspired stalemate, the imprimatur of every conflict the UN has ever been involved in. An example of this idiotic diplomatic approach, one out of many, was the unnecessary surrender of North Korea to communist forces in 1950. America is still paying the price for this policy 50 years later as are generations of poor Koreans who continue to live under the miserable North Korean communist jack-boot.
The aftermath of the Gulf War witnessed the sad and shameful abandonment by the US of Kurd and Shiite allies in Iraq who were left to struggle alone against Saddam Hussein's genocide. The explanation from the Bush Sr. administration for this inhuman betrayal was that to intervene on behalf of the Kurds would have been a violation of the UN "mandate."
The American people, through their representatives in Congress, have the means to decide questions of war and foreign policy. The Constitution recognizes the right of the American people to direct foreign policy in the national interest and according to what is perceived to be morally right. By constitutional means, American allies could be wholeheartedly supported and wars could be decisively won thus preserving the peace.
The hour may be late but we the people must insist that our Congress, our elected representatives, re-assert their constitutional authority over future wars. Only by doing so is there any possibility of achieving a comprehensive victory against terror.
Without the coalition, assembled through the UN, the US would not have had the Arab support it needed to dislodge Iraq from Kuwait.
Morse, like all the Monday-morning-back-benchers, doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. As usual, for Morse.
What does that have to do with Bush using the UN to build his coalition? Like his dad, George W. is "using" the UN to front for what he's going to do anyway.
The rules got changed once...just change them back again.
Of course at that point...we'll probably have to request/evict the UN from NY
The US wanted Arab support for diplomatic reasons.
It did not need that support militarily.
I think the distinction is significant.
I agree that we are slowly becoming a power that has to be plugged in to the UN to get anything done these days and that in and of itself is a road to ruin IMHO.
Stay Safe !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.