PROVING THE OPPOSITE:

Amid Iraq Policy Shift, Refusal to Admit Change Is a Constant (Dana Milbank, September 9, 2003, Washington Post)

Twenty-five hundred years ago, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus taught the world that, because things are always changing, "we cannot step twice into the same river." Now, in the 21st century, the Bush administration is turning poor Heraclitus on his head with a firm belief that, regardless of appearance, Bush never changes. This bit of metaphysics, while creative, has a flaw: Transcripts of officials' earlier remarks indicate their views are not as pure as advertised.

Consider this argument, made last week by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz after Bush decided to offer to cede some power to the United Nations. "Let's take specifically this issue of the U.N. resolution that didn't sort of emerge out of nowhere a few days ago," he said. "It's been on our agenda ever since the fall of Baghdad -- understanding that we wanted to bring in more international troops and part of that plan is going to try to get U.N. support."

Five months earlier, Wolfowitz struck a different tone. "I think what we are trying to avoid is a situation that we have seen in other places in the world where Iraq might become a sort of permanent ward of the international community," he said April 10. Though he welcomed U.N. humanitarian assistance, "it can't be the managing partner. It can't be in charge. . . . We don't want to reproduce a Bosnia model, or a Kosovo model, or an East Timor model."

That humanitarian-only role for the United Nations does not sound like the proposal Powell outlined last week when he touted the new resolution. "With the resolution, you're essentially putting the Security Council into the game," he said. "And the very fact that the [Iraqi] Governing Council is the body being invited by the Security Council to report to the Security Council on its plans . . . shows the involvement of the Security Council." Even the U.S. military command would "report on a regular basis to the United Nations," Powell said.

That's not what Powell said April 9, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. "The suggestion," he said, "that now that the coalition has done all of this and liberated Iraq, thank you very much, step aside and the Security Council is now going to become responsible for everything, is incorrect. And they know it. And they were told it." Powell added: "We believe that the coalition, having invested this political capital and life and treasure into this enterprise, we are going to have a leading role for some time as we shape this process."

Note the three phreases used by Wolfowitz and Powell--"can't be the managing partner"; "can't be in charge"; "The suggestion that...the Security Council is now going to become responsible for everything, is incorrect". Each implies that the UN will be involved, but suggets limits--will be a partner, but not the managing one; will be involved, but not in charge; will have responsibilities, but won't be responsible for eveything. Does anyone seriously imagine that whatever change in tactics President Bush may now be pursuing will include having the UN dictate to the U.S.? If our troops come under fire will we go to Kofi Annan to ask if we can shoot back? Hardly, and, if not, then how is this the seachange that Mr. Milbank and others seem to want it to be?

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 9, 2003 8:46 PM