 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||
| Rebuilding
Iraq: UN or no UN involvement? |
||
|
||
|
The US had tried to involve the UN from the beginning, but considering the level of corruption within the organization, the UN was determined to control the program with a very likely motivation of covering the trail of corruption. If Saddam was bribing the UN, was he buying their silence on the proliferation of WMDs? If they were stalling on the resolutions, was it to dispose of the evidence? The coalition was forced into a position of enforcing the resolutions the UN sold out on. Now that the corruption within the UN has been exposed, it is apparent that waiting on the UN resolutions to be enforced by the UN was not the right measure to have taken. The UN at that point held the ace of being the “sacred cow” and held the upper hand at the negotiating table. Today, the hand has been dealt at the negotiating table from a new deck of cards. The corruption has been exposed internationally and if the UN does not assist with the rebuilding of Iraq, what is the organization receiving so much international funding for? Since the corruption has been exposed, the UN now has a vested interest in rebuilding its credibility as an organization. Now they do not have the leverage or motivation to call for complete control. Now is the time to integrate the UN in rebuilding Iraq. The US and supporting countries have done a fine job in Iraq and absolutely need to be in Iraq, but it is time to simultaneously utilize the expertise of the UN reconstruction effort. As we move into a new chapter of rebuilding Iraq, we need to review our current policies. For example, the decision to remove all remnants of the Baathist Party needs to be reviewed to make today’s policy decisions effective. Here is a statement from the White House, 04/22/2004:
Like any decision, the decision to dissolve the Baathist Party certainly had its pros and cons. We will never know if that was the most effective strategy, or if it would have made any difference considering Saddam had not been captured at that point and would have controlled his Party remotely. Had he been captured, perhaps the complete dissolving of the Baathist Party would not have been necessary. Hindsight is 20/20 and leaving the Baathists in power would have had its own set of complications. Some argue keeping the Baathist Party in would be like keeping the Nazi Party in following WWII. Unquestionably those who committed crimes against humanity need to be dealt with as criminals. But what do the hundreds of thousands of people who were just on the fringes of the Party do if they cannot be employed in Iraq?
This was the plan going into Sierra Leone:
That would be 45,000 less people working against you in Sierra Leone or, in the case of Iraq, 400,000 (less the people who committed crimes against humanity) often skilled and employed Baathists working with us, rather than against us. Capt. Dominique Neal, the new Lima Company commander, stated this week, "One thing that I do know is that the Iraqi people respond to who they think is the strongest. They saw the velvet glove when we first came in, and then we took off the glove and showed them the iron fist." stl.com. With Saddam captured but with heavy resistance still being experienced, perhaps now is the right time to reintegrate the fringe members of the Baathist Party. An analysis and adaptation to the situation is entirely necessary and critical. Moving forward… When Iraq is stabilized, yet still vulnerable, we need to implement a diplomatic US model that does not infringe on Middle Eastern soil (which inspires more terrorism) but allows military assistance to be deployed rapidly . Britain offers a great military model that reduces the amount of soldiers necessary, still offers civilians confidence, but does not impact or infringe as prevalently in the day-to-day life of civilians and, of course, does not cost the taxpayers as much money. The “over-the-horizon British rapid reaction” model has worked beautifully in Sierra Leone. Perhaps the diplomatic efforts promoting the program that receives effective local media coverage contributes to the operation’s success…the locals know a police force is nearby.
Although I will stress the UK sent soldiers to assist with the UN peacekeeping forces, the UK kept complete control of their soldiers, NOT the UN. So, still maintaining control of our forces while working with the United Nations’ peacekeeping efforts in Iraq may be the most effective way to rebuild Iraq and bring many of our soldiers home when the conditions are more stable. For those that think one step further on the UN oil-for-food program… if the UN knew about the fraud before the war, then they would have had a desperate conflicting interest NOT to enforce the sanctions on Saddam and avoid going to war, along with their allies France and Russia. It really did end up being like a 007 movie. The good guys end up really being the bad guys, and the ones the world thought were bad, the USA, end up being the good guys in a strange twist in this real life plot. The UN is an important organization, but we do need transparency to ensure their hands are not in the cookie jar. But discounting the UN involvement due to the corruption of the oil-for-food program is an unwise decision. We need to set aside our resentment, ensure transparency of the organization, and allow them to do what they are experienced at… peacekeeping efforts. A successful Iraq is essential for the global war on terror. Afghanistan etched in stone the evil that breeds in war-torn countries.
Additional Information: As an example of the British operation, after some minor unrest in Freetown, Sierra Leone, the Royal Gurkhas were deployed rapidly to avoid an escalation of unrest:
End BATTLES It's a little like wrestling
a gorilla. - Robert Strauss |
