The UN is unfit to take over rebuilding Iraq

The Sunday Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 08/24/03 | Con Coughlin

[Pokey78]

Officials at the United Nations compound in Baghdad could not have made themselves any clearer. During numerous meetings with coalition commanders to discuss the security arrangements for the Canal Hotel, the UN's administrative headquarters, they were insistent that they did not want a large American presence to protect them.

Even when members of Iraq's interim government received warnings that the remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime were planning a suicide truck attack against a "soft" target in the Iraqi capital - such as the Canal Hotel - the UN officials reiterated the view that they could look after themselves.

Salim Lome, the UN spokesman in Baghdad, was still defending this position last Wednesday morning as American and Iraqi rescue workers continued to recover survivors from the remains of the hotel.

UN officials "did not want a large American presence outside", Mr Lome explained, because it would have compromised their position as independent intermediaries between the Iraqis and the "occupying powers". Unlike the Americans, who spent so much of their time in Saddam Hussein's well-fortified former palaces, UN staff were primarily in Iraq to undertake a humanitarian mission, and did not want "to live behind barbed wire".

It was as a direct consequence of this naivety that there was only a single American army Humvee guarding the main road to the hotel when the suicide bomber embarked upon his murderous mission.

Yet, perversely, it is the Americans, rather than the UN, who seem to be getting all the blame for last week's tragic attack on the UN. As Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, declared soon after breaking his family holiday in Finland to return to New York immediately after the attack: "The occupying power is responsible for law and order and the security of the country. That has not happened."

Relations between the US and UN, of course, have not exactly been cordial since Saddam proved so adroit at sowing division and discord among the Security Council during the intense period of diplomatic manoeuvring that preceded the war.

What Mr Annan and those who share his world view fail to grasp, however, is that while the UN would prefer to keep its distance from the activities of the American and British soldiers who are trying to restore some semblance of civil society to Iraq after 35 years of Ba'athist tyranny, this is a distinction that is utterly lost on the small pockets of Saddam loyalists who remain determined to wreck the post-war settlement.

Indeed after the security council formally sanctioned the US-British coalition as the "occupying power" in Iraq under resolution 1483, it is little wonder that Saddam's loyalists regard the UN as actively colluding with the coalition. And in case Mr Annan hasn't noticed, Saddam's loyalists have been doing their best in recent weeks to disrupt the UN's much-vaunted humanitarian activities by attacking infrastructure targets, such as the water and electricty supplies.

The latest outburst of international sparring over how to manage Iraq's post-Saddam future, prompted by the bombing of the UN compound, will undoubtedly give comfort to Saddam and the determined band of loyalists who remain intent on making sure the coalition fails in its attempt to restore political stability to Baghdad. Saddam is no doubt thinking along the lines stated by Lenin in the days leading up the Russian revolution: the worse it gets, the better it is.

Certainly the UN's conduct since the bombing does not inspire much confidence that it could provide a viable alternative to the coalition in running Iraq. In order for tangible progress to be made in rebuilding Iraq, the priority must be the complete eradication of Saddam's regime and its sympathisers, whether they be Palestinian renegades or Al-Qa'eda militants.

The top priority, of course, must be to get Saddam himself, for so long as he remains at large he will continue to serve as a rallying point for the discontents. And on that front, while the headlines mainly concentrate on the activities of the saboteurs and bombers, the coalition continues to make remarkable progress.

Following last week's capture of Taha Yassin Ramadan, the former Iraqi vice-president, and (Chemical) Ali Hassan al-Majid, Saddam's cousin and long-term enforcer, the coalition has now accounted for more than 40 of those named in the pack of cards of most wanted regime members. Apart from Saddam himself, the only other significant former regime member still at large is Izzat Ibrahim, the deputy head of the Ba'ath party's ruling body, the Revolutionary Command Council.

Critics of the coalition also conveniently overlook the fact that not everything that has happened in Iraq since Saddam's overthrow has been a disaster. A recent survey of the Iraqis showed that more than 70 per cent supported the removal of Saddam's regime, which probably explains why the different factions and ethnic groups in Iraq have not allowed their age-old rivalries to degenerate into open civil war, as was so confidently predicted by pre-war doom-mongers.

If, then, Iraq is not about to become the new Lebanon, there is still the possibility that it could become the new Afghanistan, with scores of foreign, although mainly Arab, fighters flooding in to join a new jihad to repel the foreign invaders from Muslim soil.

Iraq is now the front line in the war on terror. Were the coalition to hesitate in its determination to confront the remnants of Saddam's regime, and the motley crew of Islamic troublemakers who are seeking to take advantage of the unstable security situation, it would indicate that the West lacks the will to confront those who seek to harm it.

For this reason it is essential that Mr Annan and his colleagues at the UN, rather than trying to undermine the effectiveness of the coalition by diluting its command structure, concentrate their energies on finding the means to strengthen the coalition. The serious task of nation-building in Iraq can only begin in earnest once the war is finally won.

• Con Coughlin is the author of Saddam: The Secret Life (Macmillan)

[Burkeman1]

Well- this is one thing I agree on when it comes to Iraq. The last thing needed is the incompetence of the UN in re-building Iraq. The UN is a useless international patronage dumping ground for the sons and daughters of corrupt third world elites. They couldn't manage themselves out of a paper bag.

[xJones]

Were the coalition to hesitate in its determination to confront the remnants of Saddam's regime, and the motley crew of Islamic troublemakers who are seeking to take advantage of the unstable security situation, it would indicate that the West lacks the will to confront those who seek to harm it.

That would be a very clear summary, except that the West is divided. The U.S. and Britain would bring order out of Iraqi chaos, but the French-fried U.N. are in less than subtle opposition. However, if the U.N. prefers it's people to be blown up rather than be guarded by coalition troops, that's their business.

[Austin Willard Wright]

I hold that rather quaint view (spirit of 1776 and all that archaic stuff you) that nobody (either the UN or Paul Bremmer) is "fit" to rule another country as a colony or quasi-colony.

[Burkeman1]

I agree- but if our troops are going to be there- I would rather the UN not be involved at all as it is worse than useless.

[Austin Willard Wright]

That is the problem, isn't it? Rummy's folly has put us in a trap. We need more manpower to police, nation-build, and occupy Iraq....but Rumsfeld has no additional source of manpower. Other countries are already starting to withdraw. If the U.S. brings in the UN, however, the UN (or the constituent governments) will refuse to be under U.S. command. We'd feel the same way if the roles were reversed. It is truly a sinkhole.

[Burkeman1]

Yes- I have noticed the dance the US is doing with the UN right now- trying to get the French and the Germans to committ troops to Iraq though we insist they be under operational US command. The scheer arrogance of this demand is almost laughable. Can anyone imagine the US sending troops to a war zone to be commanded by French officers? Not to mention that Bush has been chief cheerleader in charge of the "hate Europe" movement. We are talking about a President who had Air Force One rename French Fries - "freedom fries" on the menu!

Having said that- I still don't want the UN anywhere near Iraq. I realize the manpower issue is real but seriously- it isn't worth begging at the UN for help that would prove counter productive in the long run. This was an American made war- let the re-building be American lead as well.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Interesting take. I have a friend who has some fairly good inside information about Garner. Garner's goal was to create an interim government quickly, turn it over to them, and then get out...hence he was elbowed aside by Rummy and his allies who wanted the U.S. to stay around for yearss "teaching" the Iraqis about Wilsonian democracy. Then again....the overthrow of Garner might have just been an example of Acton's dictum about power e.g. the neo-cons and their allies have conquered Iraq and they couldn't let go.

[boris]

Why in the world would anybody want to rebuild a terrorist nation?

[Burkeman1]

Actually I heard that Rummy was quite upset when told that Syria and other wars were off the table before the next election. Remember our little penetration into Syria at the end of "major combat" in Iraq in April? We penetrated upwards of 25 miles into Syrian territory and killed 80 Syrian troops. I think we just returned some captive Syrians from that engagement last week. 25 miles?

[Servant of the Nine]

Not only that, but having the UN means having the French.
The French love Saddam Husein and the Baath Party. They have personal relationships, and their only hope of repayment of the Billions they advanced the Iraqi Govt. is to help them return to power.
If the Frogs get into Iraq they will immediately start supporting the fugitive Baathists, providing them papers and communications. They will work actively to prevent the interim govt from succeeding.

So9

[Burkeman1]

Do you really believe that? Do you really think that so much of the French economy was dependent on trade with a nation of 28 million that they would take such a course? The French are quite happy to let us stew in Iraq and are not eager to get in there with troops (though their semi state controlled Businesses are). As for friends of Sadaam? Rummy has some nice smiling pictures of himself with Sadaam.

[Burkeman1]

Yes- France acts in her interests and acts very badly at times in Africa (hundreds of little reported on engagements in former French colonial holdings in the past 40 years). I am sure they have their "justifications." Like we did when Reagan was giving aid to the Khmer Rouge in the 80's (who had killed about 2 million Cambodians) to fight the Viet Namese occupation. Or when we were supplying a Moaist murderer in Angola to fight the Cuban and East Europeon proxy troops put there by the Soviet Union.

The list of our perfidy in the Cold War goes on and on. Maybe it was necessary (I tend to agree with that) but let's drop the moral supperiority when it comes to the French and other nations. We did what we thought we had to do- and so did they.

[Burkeman1]

And PS- what about our recent history with Iraq? Do you think we want to capture Sadaam alive? Geesh- the can of worms he could open! The Milosevic trial has prooved embarassing enough to the US (though it is rarely followed by the US media, it is by the rest of the world.) I can't imagine what a trial of Sadaam would reveal?

[rockfish59]

Let Iraq have them. I think they deserve each other!

[Servant of the Nine]

Do you really believe that?

Yes.

Do you really think that so much of the French economy was dependent on trade with a nation of 28 million that they would take such a course?

No, of course it is not economic, it is ideological.
It is a combination of French anti-semitism and French taste for totalitarianism that have stewed together in the minds of the French Inteligensia/governing class since Charlemagne .

The French will do anything possible to bring down any nation superior to their own. It is Chauvanism without limit and we are its principal target.

So9

[Burkeman1]

I don't know. What were we doing in giving Sadaam intel and even indirect chemical and bio aid during the 80's? We didn't know what a sick freak he was? BS! We knew and supported him because we feared Iran more! ANd it now seems that we were giving Iran intel and weapons as well to make it a standoff and thus we helped kill a million in a trench war! What were we doing supplying the Khmer Rouge with weapons after they had killed millions? What were we doing supporting Joseph Savimbi in Angola when we knew what he was? Nations act in what their "percieved" interest is. Often that "interest" is wrong but yet we act on it. You want to make the French the bad guys? Fine. We have just as many horror stories in our history as they do since we have become a "nation".

[optimistically_conservative]

That is the problem, isn't it? Rummy's folly has put us in a trap. We need more manpower to police, nation-build, and occupy Iraq....but Rumsfeld has no additional source of manpower.

We need two things: 1) Better intelligence on the Saddamites and Islamists operating in Iraq, and 2) More Iraqi police and security forces to put a native face on enforcement. Replacing American faces with Turkish, Indian, etc. faces doesn't hurt, but it's not a substitute for Iraqi faces. Trying to make up for our lack of good intelligence, the force multiplier now, with a larger armed foreign footprint/presence is a very bad idea for security. It also causes other problems:

"I mean, there is a downside to having too many troops there. I mean, clearly, there's a downside where you increase your lines of communication, you increase your number of logistics troops, you increase the -- you know, the energy that you have to expend just to guard yourself. I have never been one in favor of huge, ponderous forces, but light, agile, mobile forces that not only can deal with the problem in Iraq, but throughout the theater." - Gen. Abizaid, DoD News Briefing, August 21, 2003 (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030821-secdef0604.html).

Other countries are already starting to withdraw. If the U.S. brings in the UN, however, the UN (or the constituent governments) will refuse to be under U.S. command. We'd feel the same way if the roles were reversed. It is truly a sinkhole.

You mean like they refused US command in NATO, or for Desert Storm, or in Afghanistan, .....

You're right though, we've always demanded to be the one's large and in charge for the big ops - the little ones that don't get much press we have less of a problem being under foreign command.

[optimistically_conservative]

You're right of course, the French have as much right to be on the wrong side of history and morality as we historically have been.

However, it still is good to try to determine and understand their motives and attachments.

[Burkeman1]

Most French anti semitism is from Arab immigrants- not the French themselves.

And the French have never really been tolerant of totalitarianism even after WWII when the French Communist party was riding high. As for your weird Charlemagne reference (who couldn't read) I have no answer.

[Burkeman1]

Yes- I agree. I am not sure whose is worse? The French seem to conduct their foreign policy on purely selfish reasons (should a foreign policy be conducted otherwise?). We seem to conduct our foreign policy on various abstract reasons formulated and then force fed to our public (and if such policies benefit some US economic interests all the better but that is not the primary moving force behind our policies.)

[Servant of the Nine]

Most French anti semitism is from Arab immigrants- not the French themselves.

Tell that to Dreyfuss

And the French have never really been tolerant of totalitarianism even after WWII when the French Communist party was riding high.

The French from Charlemaigne to the Bourbons to the Bonopartes to Petain and DeGaulle have always craved a touch of the lash and prefered the maximum possible central control. They can't seem to cope with any system between absolute rule and anarchy, unless you consider the 5th republic a proven success.

So9

[Burkeman1]

The Dreyfuss scandal actually is proof of the health of the French people. That it basically brought down major leaders in France is proof that France was a healthy nation. At the same time in America we were lynching Blacks, the KKK was riding high, and black singers and early Jazz players were welcomed in Paris hotels as honored guests when they would have been denied the same accomidations in Atlanta or Dallas.

[Servant of the Nine]

As a person of French descent I feel confident in saying that Mark Twain was exactly right in comparing the French and Commanchees, and that things haven't changed a bit since.

So9

[Burkeman1]

Oh and lets forget the lynching of Leo Franks in Georgia? A Jewish business owner wrongly convicted of the rape and killing of an Irish teen who worked for him in the 1920's? That was a major case that didn't seem to arouse this nation like Dreyfus did France?

[optimistically_conservative]

I think the difference between policy formulation and execution comes from the differences in our histories, from how we became nation-states, our foreign entaglements/geo-strategic (hemispheres) placement, and post-WWII/Industrial Age juxtaposition.

What matters today more is Frech fomenting anti-Americanism and puring gasoline or coal on the Middle East embers, versus using their influence to de-Baathify and expose terrorist lanes in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Otherwise they are less than helpful ingrates.

[Burkeman1]

Twain was a good man. Upon meeting Teddy Roosevelt he wrote that he thought TR was insane (most likely true given his eratic behavior). Twain was also very against "imperialism" and our nation being involved with barbarians. He was a true patriot who read the founders well.

[optimistically_conservative]

puring -> pouring

[Servant of the Nine]

Oh and lets forget the lynching of Leo Franks in Georgia? A Jewish business owner wrongly convicted of the rape and killing of an Irish teen who worked for him in the 1920's? That was a major case that didn't seem to arouse this nation like Dreyfus did France?

Franks was a case of mob action by the lowest whitetrash scum in our nation. Dreyfuss was a case of institutional prejudice at the very highest levels.

So9

[Burkeman1]

Do you think France matters that much? But the situation is this. NATO is all but dead. France and Germany hate us and are talkng with each other if not Russia. Britain is with us but their leader- "the liar" (at least as he he was known on FR under Clinton) Blair may be gone soon.

Fact is- we are alone in the world. We are not seen as a benevolent force. We are seen as rulers and empire builders.

[The Iguana]

Bump for later reading.

[WOSG]

"Most French anti semitism is from Arab immigrants- not the French themselves."

A comment at odds with French history.

The Dreyfus affair of 100 years ago was not instigated by an Arab immigrant!

http://www.wfu.edu/~sinclair/dreyfus.htm

[Burkeman1]

Yes- we have been digesting the Dreyfus affair on this thread. Your post adds nothing. As to RECENT anti semitism in France one would be hard pressed to find a single act committed by a true Frenchman and not an Arab or Muslem immigrant.

[WOSG]

"Your post adds nothing."

well ex-cuuuse me.

I got too engrossed in actually reading the link that discusses an infamous case to reply quickly.

Some links FYI on *current* French anti-semitism then ...

http://www.boycottfrance.com/history_french_anti_semitism.php

http://www.factsofisrael.com/load.php?p=http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000173.html

[Burkeman1]

Before I read them- does either post have anything to do with an actual Christian Frenchman committing acts against Jews or Jewish sites in Israel?

[Burkeman1]

Or France.

[optimistically_conservative]

Wow...are you taking Prozac or just giving everyone else a reason to start?

France could be very helpful, given their history in the region and their current population ties/intelligence gathering capabilities.

I've heard that NATO is "all but dead" for more than a decade now. Germany doesn't hate us. To be fair, Germany hates us less than we hate the French, if you're into polls. The level of goodwill between Germany and the US is mutual. Oh, and us hating export relaint economies hurts them much more than it hurts us.

Blair may go, but so will Schröder, and Chirac's killing 10,000 Frenchmen while their economy goes into the tubes.

Fact is- we are alone in the world. We are not seen as a benevolent force. We are seen as rulers and empire builders.

No, we're not, but if you let the whiners, nay-sayers, doom and gloomers, Bush-bashers/haters, and American self-floggers get to you - well statements like that will just come naturally.

Iraqi Lives Saved Counter - Algorithm

    # of Iraqis not killed by Coalition compared to estimates
+  # of Iraqis not murdered by Saddam since deposed* x # of days since 1 May 03

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(                                                                  )

x  (birth rate per day of those saved above x # of days since 1 May 03)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(                                                                  )

-  # of Iraqi deaths reported by www.iraqbodycount.net

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    # of Iraqis alive because of the US-led Coalition's compassion, competence and
    love of humanity.

* incl. # of Iraqis not dying from sanctions since they were lifted

A Calculated example for Sunday, August 10, 2003:
	Minimum	Maximum
	48,000	3,900,000
+	47/day x 102 days	548/day x 102 days
	52,794	3,955,896
+	(( 34.2 per 1000 population per year x 52,794 ) / 365 days ) x 102 days	(( 34.2 per 1000 population per year x 3,955,896 ) / 365 days ) x 102 days
	53,298	3,993,703
-	6,087	7,798
	47,211	3,985,905
References: http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/Saddam_Hussein.htm http://www.cesr.org/iraq/docs/humancosts.pdf http://www.medact.org/tbx/docs/Medact%20Iraq%20report-spread.pdf http://www.ippnw.org/CollateralDamage.html http://www.geographyiq.com/countries/iz/Iraq_rankings.htm http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/internal.html http://www.townhall.com/columnists/marvinolasky/mo20030408.shtml http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000840.html http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

[Burkeman1]

We disagree. I thought Clinton was high handed with NATO during the Kosovo debacle. That little war merely strained relations. Bush severed them to all intent and purpose. Germany and France ain't coming to our aid in Iraq. Russia is happy that we are facing the same thing they face in Chechnya. And all three (Russia, Germany, and France) are talking about how to contain the USA!

[optimistically_conservative]

We disagree.

Debates with people you agree with are relatively short.

I thought Clinton was high handed with NATO during the Kosovo debacle. That little war merely strained relations. Bush severed them to all intent and purpose.

And yet, it still exists, it will exist past the Bush administration(s), it will expand and change character, it may eventually morph into something else.

Germany and France ain't coming to our aid in Iraq.

So what? Did I miss the history lesson where the French or Germans bailed us out during a war? France and Germany should be aiding the Iraqis, not us. If they prefer to spite the Iraqis in order to maintain a sense of false pride for adamantly protecting the Saddam regime since 1998 (when France left the no-fly zone enforcements and France, Germany and Russia fought against the Clinton policy of regime change in Iraq).

Russia is happy that we are facing the same thing they face in Chechnya.

There are absolutely some old Russian Generals and intelligence folks (Putin?) who are experiencing schadenfreude over any difficulties we have in Afghanistan or Iraq. But don't kid yourself, Putin's administration does not want us to fail - Chechnya is their tip of the world's terrorism iceberg.

And all three (Russia, Germany, and France) are talking about how to contain the USA!

Like they were when Reagan was President? Boy all that altruism for the US that existed before W became President - those were the good ol' days, eh?

[billbears]

# of Iraqis alive because of the US-led Coalition's compassion, competence and love of humanity.

A few contrived graphs and some jpegs doesn't change the issue that your statement had nothing to do with the war (at least not according to the President). And I think the issue of the whole thread is getting sidetracked on this 'patriotic' 'blame the French' kick.

The fact is that the UN can't handle the job of rebuilding. Unfortunately what the Telegraph fails to admit is that US troops won't be able to do it either. That doesn't mean I don't support the troops and don't believe in a strong military, because I do. Rumsfeld and his crack squad of neocon advisors can keep sending troops into Iraq until the cows come home and it won't mean a hill of beans difference (speaking of beans, have they found any more of that 'killer' fertilizer?). Never mind the fact that sooner or later they're going to run out of troops to send for this (since Lord knows Rummy's bunch wouldn't fight if they had to). Citizens of the respective states won't like it and the troops will come home for one political reason or another. Twenty-thirty years from now, when the 'liberation' force leaves, it'll go back to what it was, if not worse.

Democracy will not work in this part of the world. And please no comparisons to Japan or Germany. Neither one of those states was surrounded by nations that grudingly accept US presence on one hand and with the other give fists of money to terrorists (as our 'ally' Saudi Arabia). Neither one of those states was surrounded by a half a billion 'believers' just like themselves. Democracy does not, and will never, fully work there.

I can see the reason why the UN wants to do this on their own. Mind you, I agree with their reason in principle (that of being a truly independent unattached intermediary), however in that nation anything not flying the flag of Iraq is likely to get shot at no matter what the color (and the article points this out). If I were the UN, and since they're going to be there, I'd accept US protection while the troops finish collecting their 'deck of cards'. Since they're not going to find WMDs (off to Syria or Iran, I can't remember where Rummy wanted them to go next ;)), pack the bags, put a basic government into place, write them a passable Constitution and leave

However I know this won't happen. Why it won't happen I don't know. Maybe someone should ask Irving...

[billbears]

bump

[optimistically_conservative]

A few contrived graphs and some jpegs doesn't change the issue that your statement had nothing to do with the war (at least not according to the President). And I think the issue of the whole thread is getting sidetracked on this 'patriotic' 'blame the French' kick.

Please don't drivel on the monitor.

The fact is that the UN can't handle the job of rebuilding. Unfortunately what the Telegraph fails to admit is that US troops won't be able to do it either.

Nope, only the Iraqis can do it. And if you'll notice above, I'm opposed to more coalition "boots per square inch" in Iraq, they're not needed or wanted, it'll just cause more problems.

And you're right, let's not get sidetracked on the 'patriotic' 'blame the French' kick, it's much more patriotic and fun to kick around the 'neo-cons' and 'chickenhawks'.

Oh and the "democracy won't work" in a country that borders Turkey is pretty humorous. It's not that they are genetically incapable, but there's too much 'believing' going on around them.

Hey, thanks for you point of view!

[Burkeman1]

Geesh. Europe won't be our Biatch? Wow. Are you surprised? But then again I guess they "owe us" for being idiots in two world wars.

[WOSG]

Nope, only the Iraqis can do it.

And that is the bottom line.

Love that fake poll chart ("US giving a s**t" ...)

[optimistically_conservative]

Geesh. Europe won't be our Biatch? Wow. Are you surprised?

Nope, not surprised - and I think it's important to remember that 60 years from now, if the Middle East is free, democratic and successful - they won't want to be our biatch either.

But then again I guess they "owe us" for being idiots in two world wars.

Actually, since I wasn't alive from 1900-1950, I don't think they owe us for starting, or precipitously surrendering, any wars. I don't think they owe us for the Marshall plan into the 50s either. The fact that it was the American soldier that stood with the West Germans against Soviet expansion until the wall fell less than a generation ago - nope nothing there either.

What really tees me off is that they would still rather appease a mass murdering tyrant and blame the Anglo-Saxons for the ills in the world. They'll never learn.