February 22, 2004
LEAVE THE SADDAM'S TO US, WE'LL LEAVE REBUILDING TO YOU:
In Iraq, It's Time for Some Smarts (Fareed Zakaria, 3/01/04, Newsweek)
As the war in Iraq was coming to a close, many people—from Tony Blair to Joseph Biden (and even this writer)—urged Washington to give the United Nations a central role in postwar politics. This had been a well-worked formula for at least a decade: in Kosovo, East Timor and most recently in Afghanistan, where it produced a legitimate government and a constitutional process with remarkably little conflict. But the Bush administration was adamantly opposed—even though sidelining the U.N. would mean fewer troops and less money from other countries. "We fought the war," administration officials explained to me at the time, "and besides, the U.N. is not competent to handle a complex undertaking like Iraq." Six months later, with Washington facing a political train wreck in Iraq, whom did it call? The United Nations.
The lesson here is not that the United Nations is always right. It isn't. The lesson is that America needs to exercise power shrewdly, using those instruments that help achieve its goals—U.N., NATO, World Bank, Rotary Club, whatever. As politics in Iraq get more complicated—and they're going to get a lot more complicated—Washington will have to be far more sophisticated than it has been.It was obvious that a nakedly American occupation was going to make Iraqis resent the United States. The Pentagon's ideologues couldn't see this, but Ayatollah Ali Sistani did.
The reason to learn this lesson is because it allows us to change regimes and then hand the aftermath to the UN--an appropriate division of responsibilities and use of resources. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 22, 2004 4:47 PM
Of course, by keeping the UN out for this long, we've essentially shut them out of the decision making process, making the dialogue between the US and Iraqis like Sistani, those on the GC, and others. Now that most of the important decisions have been more or less made--or at least the important questions have been framed as being between acceptable choices--we can bring the UN in to do the work. But they will make very few decisions, for which we can all be thankful. Shutting them out of the early phase was a very good idea.
Posted by: Timothy at February 22, 2004 5:52 PMBringing in the UN any earlier in Iraq was not in the cards, and it had nothing to do with sophistication. The UN appeared to have no problems leaving Saddam in power indefinitely, and the Shiites and non-Baath Sunni leadership resented them for that. Why is the current situation not having your cake and eating it too? Because it must be a bailout of neocon arrogance if the yarn is going to be spinned...
Posted by: MG at February 22, 2004 5:59 PMThe UN pulled out of Iraq, for months, after rejecting US advice on security and then losing key personnel in a bombing attack. It kept itself out. The freed Iraqis were hostile to the UN as well, because of the UN's inaction against Sadaam. The UN played Nero, fiddling while hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died or were locked away as political prisoners. The UN's record on nationbuilding is spotty, and that's being kind. To have trusted the UN to make key decisions could have been suicidal and, notwithstanding the Dem candidates' views, the world's future safety may depend upon dealing effectively with the conditions that truly create terrorism.
Posted by: Steve at February 22, 2004 6:26 PMKofi's unclean, too, Sistani won't meet w/him.
Great - didn't OBL have the same MO - won't meet/touch uncleans.
Posted by: Sandy P. at February 22, 2004 8:18 PMDon't forget to factor in the fact that it took only one car-bomb to get the UN to cut and run in Iraq.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at February 22, 2004 9:30 PMThe resentment argument is playing very thin. So is the argument that Iraqi politics are complicated, particularly too complicated for the US to understand. It is too "complicated" to manage indefinitely, but certainly not too complicated to deal with for the next 6-9 months. And look for some changes when the Marines begin to work the Triangle (more their deaths, and fewer of ours).
Posted by: jim hamlen at February 22, 2004 10:07 PMMr. Judd;
Is your theory that after a few times of this, nations we conquer will do whatever it takes to avoid being handed over to the UN?
No, it is that the development into viable modern states will be far easier than we suspect.
Posted by: oj at February 22, 2004 11:19 PMSistani was always going to be the one making the decisions.
Posted by: oj at February 22, 2004 11:29 PMFrom what I've read lately, Kosovo is hardly a shining example of U.N. achievement, and therefore punctures Zakaria's argument.
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at February 23, 2004 9:11 AM