U.S. Troops Now Fighting For U.N. In Iraq?
By Cliff Kincaid
July 25, 2007
Let's quit beating around the bush. A U.S. military victory in Iraq is not the goal anymore. Both sides - President Bush and the liberal Democrats - want to turn the country over to the United Nations. The only question is when, not if, U.S. forces will withdraw, and whether the timing of the withdrawal will make any difference in the outcome.
Consider that a July 20 op-ed (web site) in the New York Times, "Why the United Nations Belongs in Iraq," was written not by liberal Democrat Carl Levin but by Bush's own U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad.
Despite all of the hoopla in the press about major differences between the Bush Administration and Congressional Democrats, they are united on one critical thing - giving the U.N. a much bigger role in Iraq. And this spells serious trouble, if not defeat, for a U.S. Iraq policy that once held out the hope of victory over the terrorists. It is time for honest conservatives to face the hard facts about the disastrous Bush Administration approach.
On July 18, most Senate Republicans voted against the Levin-Reed amendment "to withdraw troops from Iraq," as the stories put it. While it did include a timetable for withdrawal, it also proposed that the U.N. essentially take over the country. It said that "the President shall direct the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the United Nations to seek the appointment of an international mediator in Iraq, under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council, who has the authority of the international community to engage political, religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders in Iraq in an inclusive political process."
A Heritage Foundation report (web site) depicted the Levin-Reed amendment as a "Cut in the U.N. and Run" approach to Iraq. But the Bush approach is to cut in the U.N. and walk. It's all a matter of timing. Both sides want to see the U.N. take charge.
Only two days after Senate Republicans voted against Levin-Reed, Zalmay Khalilzad proposed basically the same approach. He declared that the U.S. supports "a larger United Nations role in Iraq" and proposed that the world body undertake "complex internal and regional mediation efforts" and "help internationalize the effort to stabilize the country."
Khalilzad said that "A new United Nations envoy should have a mandate to help Iraqis complete work on a range of issues: the law governing distribution of hydrocarbon revenues, the reform of the de-Baathification law, the review of the Constitution, the plan for demobilization of militias, an agreement for insurgents to give up their armed struggle. The envoy should be empowered to help resolve the status of Kirkuk and disputed internal boundaries and to prepare and monitor provincial elections. Also, the mandate should make it possible for the United Nations to explore potential third-party guarantees that may be needed to induce Iraqi factions to reconcile."
>> Continued -- Page 1 2
| 
