Friday, February 28, 2003

Ran across this quote on AndrewSullivan.com:

"What if [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? ... Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Right on target, huh? President Bush has been saying this. Tony Blair has been saying this. And Bill Clinton said this in 1998.

Also, Charles Krauthammer has an excellent column on how we shouldn't be going through this charade at the U.N. at all and details how we should deal with France, the U.N. and NATO in the future. He's right on, as far as I'm concerned. On a similar note, World Net Daily has a piece on how, by going to the U.N., the U.S. may be forfeiting some sovereignty. Interesting take, but I think that going to the U.N. has served two purposes:

1) Knowing that the bureaucrats at the U.N. wouldn't be able to do anything expeditiously, the U.S. looked at the time it would take to follow all of the diplomatic protocols as time to build up the forces in the Persian Gulf region. I have a little knowledge in this area, especially in America's Sealift capability, and it takes time to move troops and material. It doesn't all get flown over on airplanes, folks. Most of it arrives via ship, and the U.S. doesn't have anywhere near the Sealift capacity it should. That coupled with the possibility that the military needed to acquire more munitions (bombs, Tomahawks, etc.) after Afghanistan and the draw down of the Clinton Administration, and you can see that the military needed time. Going to the U.N. allowed us to ratchet up the pressure while building our forces in case, as expected, Saddam Hussein continued to play his games.
2) I think, and it has been reported that Colin Powell has said as much, that the U.S. wanted to give the U.N. a last chance to prove it's relevance. It's not looking good right now. Should this charade continue, the 2nd (18th) resolution recently proposed by the U.S. and U.K. won't even be voted on and we, along with our coalition of the willing, will go to war. The U.N. and NATO, the old versions at least, will be rendered obsolete. Again, refer to the Charles Krauthammer piece for what I think things should look like in the future.

By showing the U.N. for what it really is, a bunch of ineffective anti-American's who would rather limit the power of the U.S. than deal with real threats to world peace, we would stop valuing "world approval" as it pertains to our policies regarding the safety of our own sovereign nation and we would reassert that our own interests are paramount. And when those interests concern not only for our own national safety but also concern the pursuit and removal of genuine threats to world peace, it's up to the rest of the world if they are with us, or not.

No comments: