08/26/03: (Chronicles
Magazine) “Let
this be clear,” declared a Norwegian international bureaucrat last
Thursday, “The UN is not pulling out of Iraq, but we are
reorganizing our operations and work with fewer staff.” Fifty
percent fewer, to be precise. One important consequence of the bombing
of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad that killed 23 and
wounded a hundred is the fact that from now on other countries will be
reluctant to commit troops, policemen, or administrators to Iraq. The
signal from the bombers was unambiguous: whoever comes to Baghdad now,
under whatever auspices and flag, will be treated as an American
stooge, and targeted accordingly.
Those attackers are variously described as diehard Saddam loyalists,
Iranian agents, Al-Qaeda operators and Syrian infiltrators. While it
is possible that some or all of the above are involved in the daily
attacks that have claimed close to a thousand lives thus far—150 of
them American—it is unlikely that without their involvement all
resistance would cease. Violence against Americans, all olther
foreigners and their Iraqi helpers is fed by a restive population,
especially in the Sunni center, that resents foreign presence and
wants it ended by whatever means possible.
The sentiment is old-fashionedly nationalist. It will remain, and
grow, an as long as American troops remain. Bringing more US troops
would only make things worse, and in any event the option is
unattractive to the Administration only months before the election
year. It would prefer to have someone else’s troops share the burden
of occupation, possibly under UN auspices.
In the immediate aftermath of the war an approach by the Bush
Administration to the UN with an offer of a Security
Council-sanctioned mission in Iraq would have been welcomed in “Old
Europe” and elsewhere. In those heady days, however, the notion of
sharing the fruits of victory with those who had opposed the war was
regarded as unthinkable in Washington.
Four months later the roles are reversed: Secretary of State Colin
Powell is lobbying for a Security Council resolution that would bring
soldiers from various member-countries—under US command—to help
maintain a semblance of law and order in Iraq, but its approval is
unlikely. Iraq is “decomposing” and must recover its sovereignty,
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, adding that a new
U.N. resolution that would bolster its occupying forces would simply
“see the cycle of violence worsen.” Other Council members also say
that the UN political role must be expanded before any troops are
approved. India will not commit its long-promised 17,000 soldiers to
the Iraqi multinational force without a broader UN mandate.
If the Security Council refuses to adopt the kind of resolution that
Washington wants, it will be a blessing in disguise. It is in the
interest of the United States to hand over power in Iraq to a local
government—or perhaps several governments, running the Kurdish
north, Sunni center, and Shiite south respectively—and to withdraw
all soldiers as soon as possible. The democratic credentials and
ideology of those authorities taking over from the US are immaterial.
On the other hand, if Iraq were to become a UN-approved and managed
mission, the outcome would be disastrous for all concerned. The
troops—including many Americans—would stay until the job of
“nation-building” is complete, that is to say for ever. A
self-perpetuating, self-serving and corrupt bureaucracy would
inevitably emerge, a la Sarajevo and Pristina. Even if the blue
helmets were placed under US command, the political decision-making
process would become de facto multinational and “multilateral.”
American soldiers would continue to die, but their deaths would be
even more senseless than they are today.
Mr. Powell can help prevent all that, by remembering his own
“doctrine” from a decade ago, by applying its terms to what is
becoming the Iraqi quagmire, and by resigning if his colleagues from
the Pentagon overrule him yet again.
