How the World Can Aid Iraq Without Helping Bush*

[kskiska]

The UN should drive a hard bargain in exchange for bailing out the US


When George Bush addressed the UN general assembly in September last year, his message was blunt. The UN must either support his campaign against Iraq or be doomed to irrelevance. In the event, most countries refused to back him and, ignoring the UN, Bush plunged into war. Tomorrow, when Bush returns to the general assembly, his tone is expected to be somewhat less brusque.

Although Bush is loath to admit it, the US badly needs international assistance, troops and money to prevent its Iraq occupation becoming an inescapable quagmire. In other words, the UN has turned out to be anything but "irrelevant". And through officials like Colin Powell, Bush the heedless unilateralist is now emphasising consultation and an agreed, multilateral approach.

Has he seen the error of his ways? Hardly. If Bush has changed his tune, it is not because he has developed new-found respect for the UN and those who opposed his war. It is because the cost of Iraq, in terms of American lives and American tax dollars, is beginning to have a seriously negative impact on his re-election hopes. It is because ordinary Americans are critical (as ever, in fact) of his go-it-alone approach.

(snip)

These and other considerations pose a strategic choice with implications stretching far beyond Iraq. Why should the international community gathered at the UN help Bush get out of his Iraq mess? Why not let him stew and, by withholding cooperation, possibly hasten his electoral demise?

more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1046875,00.html

[Manix]

1. ...good article

Iraq does need help from the world but Bush will take credit for any
benefit of that help.

[Skittles]

2. YUP

Bush doesn't understand anything unless it negatively affects him. F***ing DISGUSTING.

[Martin Eden]

3. Bush would rather

go it alone, prolong the quagmire, and plunge the US deeper in debt than give in to the French and relinquish his political and economic stranglehold on Iraq to the UN.

After all the blood and treasure that's been spent (though not his blood or his treasure) he's not about to let go now of the world's 2nd largest (and possibly the largest) oil reserves.

Bushco's rationale for this war has shifted like the desrt sands, but there has been one constant -- the determination to privatize the Iraqi oil industry and keep it in firmly their corporate grasp.

They might give ground on some comparitively insignificant matters, but there is no way in Hell or Iraq they'll willingly let go of their oily prize.

[lindashaw]

4. Problem is, any country runs the risk of getting their people killed...

Germany will train Iraqis, I believe, and France won't send any. Britain is doing about all it can, I guess, before Tony gets the axe. The UN can't go in without getting blown up, you can't send Indian Hindus to keep Muslim peace, (they said they won't send any, anyway), and Pakistan can't send troops or they will practically have a civil war. So who is left?

[sonias]

5. your break it you buy it

This falls squarely on the shoulders of the US. Whether we like it or not. I do not fault other countries for not sending soldiers or money, at least not while the US insists it will be the occupying force. I agree with Tisdall on this one, the UN owes nothing to the US. If anything making sure the US is tied up in Iraq will prevent another war under the bu$h regime. That said, the Iraqi people do not deserve the miserable mess they find themselves in. The only thing that can give, is the bu$h regime, but bu$h' arrogant foreign policy will not allow for a faster transition to Iraqi self rule. It's never been about the best interests of the Iraqi people, it has always been about how quickly US corporate interests could get control of the oil. They haven't secured the prize so more people will have to die.

Sonia