Less a cowboy than a sheriff

George W. Bush may not be a multilateralist. But yesterday, he played one on TV. Speaking to the United Nations about Iraq, he gushed over the organization, announced the United States was rejoining UNESCO, cited the UN Commission on Human Rights, and meticulously justified his case against Saddam Hussein by reference to Security Council resolutions. To Russia, China and the European Union, the message was clear: You like multilateralism? Fine, let's talk multilateralism. Saddam -- "exactly the kind of aggressive threat the UN was born to confront" -- has flouted your precious resolutions for years. What are we all going to do about it?

It was a brilliant move, and long overdue. For too long, Bush and his advisors have been cast as selfish, trigger-happy cowboys. This is especially true in Canada and Europe. A few days ago, I was a panelist on a CBC call-in show about terrorism. With one exception -- a recently transplanted American -- each caller argued the U.S. campaign against Iraq and al-Qaeda was a scam motivated by a "fascist" domestic agenda or a desire for world domination. Mr. Bush's speech should help clear away such conspiracy theories and put the focus where it rightly sits -- on Saddam and the threat he poses to all Middle Eastern and Western nations.

Resolution by resolution, Mr. Bush stepped through Saddam's predations yesterday: invading Kuwait, torturing political opponents, supporting terrorism, breeding anthrax, oppressing religious minorities and diverting food money to weapons programs.

To listen to the speech was to understand that attacking Iraq has nothing to do with U.S. hegemony and everything to do with defanging a mass murderer who has launched ballistic missiles at four different nations and exterminated thousands of his own people with chemicals. Mr. Bush was shaming Europe into action. If only a "unilateralist" is willing to act against a genocidal tyrant, what does that say about EU-style multilateralism?

There are signs the new campaign is working: While continental Europe once put up a near unanimous front against an Iraq invasion, France, Denmark and Spain have all sent signals this week indicating a more open-minded attitude. No doubt, they are encouraged by what they see in Afghanistan. On that file, too, Mr. Bush was at first accused of aggression. But then the United States replaced a theocratic dictatorship with a nascent democracy, liberated 10 million women from a life spent under a burqa, and the accusations fell away. The idea that Iraq might enjoy its own renaissance, far-fetched a year ago, now seems plausible. That bodes well for Mr. Bush: While the EU eschews the war trade, "liberation" suits it fine.

Most Arab countries will spurn Mr. Bush to the last -- however he frames his pitch. Middle Eastern dictators loathe Saddam for stirring up trouble and attracting attention to their miserable, repressive corner of the Earth. But they are afraid that if one strongman gets knocked off, democracy could become epidemic, and the whole neighbourhood might become, as they euphemize, "destabilized." So be it. The Iraqi military is one-third the size it was in 1991, with rusting equipment and low morale. If push comes to shove, the cluster of small Gulf states that have discretely assisted the U.S. buildup in the area -- Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar -- will give Mr. Bush all the help he needs.

The President sensibly reserved this go-it-alone option yesterday. Despite all of yesterday's multilateralist rhetoric, Mr. Bush did not fail to include this terse warning: "We will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power."

Translation: We truly want to be a team player. But if you don't have the wisdom and courage to join us, we will act alone. We have the existing UN resolutions to justify our action, and, soon enough, the guns in place to enforce them.

In time, this speech will be remembered as a milestone. It remains to be seen whether the President will succeed in getting European nations to join his campaign against Saddam. But if he doesn't, he'll have at least demonstrated -- in plain, persuasive language the rest of the world can readily understand -- that Uncle Sam's solo status reflects the moral failure of the nations that don't show up in the Gulf, not the one country that does.

Mr. Bush's speech should help clear away such conspiracy theories and put the focus where it rightly sits -- on Saddam and the threat he poses to all Middle Eastern and Western nations.

LOL.

Sure, it should, but it won't.

I have seen ZERO remark on what struck me in GW's speech at the UN. Did my ears deceive me or did Bush explicitly speak of reform in the region, following Iraq?

...that Uncle Sam's solo status reflects the moral failure of the nations that don't show up in the Gulf, not the one country that does.

Exactly.

I never met a selfish trigger-happy cowboy.

George The Younger may be the first one or two, but he's all hat.

If you want to see the cattle, go to Afghanistan - and Iraq when he's finished.

He does have a nice hat, but he's got the cattle too.

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.