At Last, a Good Development

[Kooperman]

NYTimes.com > Opinion

At Last, a Good Development

Published: April 17, 2004

President Bush gave some cause for hope yesterday to Americans looking for signs of how he plans to extricate the United States from the mess in Iraq. Mr. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain appeared in the Rose Garden to give a strong, and very welcome, endorsement of the idea that the United Nations would begin to take the political lead, starting with the creation of an interim governing body to replace the American-controlled Iraqi authority on June 30.

Mr. Bush's hand was forced by problems largely of his own making and by the refusal of the most important moderate Shiite leader to deal with American-led occupation forces. Now that the president seems prepared to move, there remain enormous issues, some of which could threaten the June 30 deadline. But after a year of dismissing the United Nations, it was gratifying to see Mr. Bush acknowledging the reality that without U.N. help, there is no hope of improving the situation in Iraq.

The U.N. envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, has proposed that the United Nations, in consultation with Washington, appoint an interim governing body that will run Iraqi ministries after June 30. It is still not clear how closely it will mirror Iraq's ethnic divisions, or whether it will include members of the current Governing Council. A less overtly political, more technocratic body might run things better, but it could have trouble rallying real popular support. Leaders of the current Governing Council are maneuvering for control of the new body and will do their best to avoid being nudged out of the way.

A successful transition will require a new Security Council authorization. The Bush administration has long insisted that it already has U.N. authority to remain in Iraq indefinitely. But even its best friends disagree, and Mr. Blair said yesterday that there would be a new resolution.

Negotiating the text will be hard. Even if everything goes as well as possible, and even if reluctant European nations agree to provide military aid, the situation in Iraq will remain perilous at best, and large numbers of American troops will be needed to keep the peace indefinitely. A new resolution will have to define the relationship between those forces and the interim body. Mr. Bush will not, and should not, surrender command, even if spelling that out further diminishes the symbolic sovereignty of the new government.

Before any positive developments can occur, the occupation forces will have to end the current Sunni and Shiite uprisings. No new governing body, with or without U.N. blessing, will be able to withstand this sort of challenge to its authority — and more seem likely.

Military leaders must also address shortcomings in the existing security forces. In recent combat, American-trained Iraqi units were at best ineffective. At worst, they switched sides. The coalition troops in the south-central part of Iraq, currently under Polish command, performed badly, with some units retreating at the first challenge. Others were incapable of defending one another, and few followed the orders of the Polish commanders.

Those who have been loudly demanding a stronger U.N. role, including this page, must acknowledge that simply adding the United Nations to the mix at this late date is no cure. The United Nations itself remains uncertain about how much it is willing to do in Iraq. But this approach is by far the most promising available at present. The alternatives — abandoning Iraq to chaos or maintaining an outright American occupation until a stable Iraqi government can somehow be created — are unacceptable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/17/opinion/17SAT1.html?th

[Ken]

Mr. Bush will not, and should not, surrender command

No, I think he should.

It's like playing a game of good cop, bad cop.

Let them see Bush and the American forces like they do, then, let them see the U.N. "step in" and "take control away from him".

They might just take to the U.N. (being that it's an international peacekeeping force, and it didn't start or participate in the war), and, at the very least, the Shiite uprisings might diminish.

Just a thought. It might not work, but at this point, you need to take every chance you can.

[janett999]

i will just be glad to see our soldiers get out of there, and come home!

[Stuzb]

UN involvement?

That worries me as well, after all, it was their involvement at the end of the Gulf War that allowed Saddam to stay in power. It was their involvement that imposed sanctions that seemingly every communist state disobeyed, as well as some EU countries, most notably Spain. It was also the UN who allowed Saddam to carry on as he always had done after the end of the Gulf War. The UN also allowed Iraqi troops to shoot down planes patrolling the UN-imposed no-fly zone. It was also the UN who sat by and watched Saddam eject UN inspectors from Iraq on numerous occasions. The UN are also responsible for allowing Saddam to use the proceeds of oil sales, not to invest in Iraq and the wellbeing of it's people, but to acquire yet more personal wealth, whilst the people of his nation continued to struggle in poverty. The UN also stood-by and watched as the people of Iraq were subjected to the regime of a dictator who did not suffer objectors lightly - in fact torture followed by a slow death was normal for anyone who spoke out.

The UN also stood by and allowed allied forces to enter Iraq, even though the UN did not sanction the action and the forces were made up of nations signed up to the UN charter, and consequently, agreed to be bound by any decisions and rulings that the UN reached.

In conclusion, the UN under the 'guidance' of Kofi Annan is a pointless entity, with absolutely no power nor jurisdiction and should be abolished until such times it can actually enforce anything it believes in.

Don't misunderstand me, the war in Iraq is completely unjustified, but the removal of Saddam IMO needed to happen - I just happen to believe that there were other options available - all of which would have avoided a war, and one of which the UN should have enacted a long time before GWB decided to try and take over the world.

I also think that US, British and any other allied forces need to withdraw from Iraq asap, however, I have absolutely no confidence in the UN, particularly as some of the UN forces would be expected to include troops from the very same nations that are the ones that are already occupying Iraq, and who have already acted against the UN's judgement, and consequently, should be barred from the UN. But the UN being the pointless UN that it is, will still welcome US, British and other allied troops amongst it's numbers.

The problem will always be that any force that enters Iraq will be seen as oppressors by Saddam supporters. This leaves the only solution, therefore, as being Iraqis policing Iraq. I appreciate this is extremely simplistic but whilst foriegn troops (under any banner) remain in Iraq they will always be in a state of occupation, and this will only ever increase resentment the longer the state of occupation continues. I also believe that with the correct training, and the provision of proper equipment, married with the establishing of a democracy, the withdrawal of foriegn troops, and close monitoring, the situation in Iraq will improve.

Regrettably, there will always be those that were profiteering under Saddam's regime and they will always try and undermine whomever and whatever happens to try and rebuild Iraq, but, which nation hasn't had, or doesn't have terrorist problems? Unfortunately it's a fact of life, and one which Iraq and the rest of the World will never be free from.

[Kooperman]

Right now this Iraq situation is so hot politically for the Bush administration that they're trying to put some of the heat in another kitchen.

[Redneck4sure]

Stuzb, I agree with EVERY word you said. Therefore, since you are a better typer and more articulate, I will watch you work!