More BBC BS: "Iraq the ungovernable" By Andrew L. Jaffee, August 20, 2003	Home   Search   Forum   Terms

The notoriously leftist, agenda-driven BBC has bestowed more enlightenment on Iraq to all us fools, 'specially them there 'Merikans. Today, Paul Reynolds, BBC News Online world affairs correspondent wrote:

Britain discovered that in the 1920s. With Winston Churchill's approval, it even used gas bombs against Kurdish tribesmen who would not pay their taxes.

The Americans and a new generation of British occupiers are now discovering the old truth.

And so is the United Nations.

The UN has been in a difficult position in Iraq - one which, if not redefined, may become impossible.

It has been subservient to the US and UK and has not restricted itself to humanitarian operations only. If it had, there might not have been an attack.

But, using its mandate under Security Council resolution 1483, it has played an advisory role in setting up the Iraqi Governing Council, many of whose members are anti-Saddam veterans.

According to Iraq specialist Toby Dodge, Senior Research Fellow at Warwick University, UN envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello himself, who died in Tuesday's bomb, was "clearly associated with the formation of the Iraqi Governing Council.

"This helped to make the UN a target," he told BBC News Online.

"The attack might also have been intended to block off any American retreat using the UN. This was a potent and diabolical message - that even the UN is unacceptable."

My partner here at netWMD, Donnel Jones, and I were last night discussing yesterday's Baghdad bombing. I was foolish enough to say, "Maybe people, like at the UN, will realize that the whole civilized world is a target for terrorism." Donnel, deadpan as always, told me that they'll just find some way to blame it all on the Americans. With sarcasm intended, Donnel said, "If it weren't for the American intervention in Iraq, none of this would've happened." Soberly he told me, "It's scary what people are thinking nowadays." Don was right.

Yes, if not for the Americans, poor Saddam would still be in power, and the non-Israeli parts of the Middle East could've gone happily along with their status quo fixations on terrorism, dictatorship, and hatred--and, of course--making sure their people never get a glimpse of freedom. The BBC correspondent forgets all the positives resulting from Saddam's defeat: see "The Shot Heard Round the Arab World".

The BBC's correspondent goes on with his lecture:

"American troops are the focus for resentment and greater internationalisation would help defuse that.

"The US lacks experience in nation-building verging on the incompetent. It needs more troops but doesn't have them.

"However the roadblock to the UN doing more lies in Washington among the neo-conservatives. Until they accept that it is more attractive for the UN to take more responsibility, nothing will happen," he warned.

If U.S. troops were the only "focus for resentment" in Iraq, then why did the terrorists yesterday kill so many Iraqis? Why did terrorists kill so many Arabs when they bombed the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad? Why are terrorists intentionally depriving Iraqis of drinking water and much-needed oil revenues? Notice that these citations are all from the BBC

Oh, those bad ol' neo-conservatives in Washington. While I agree that the U.S. does need help in Iraq, I--like the "neo-cons"--am afraid that the UN would try to sabotage the mission. Don't forget all the "oil-for-food" money and weapons sales money the French and Russians made off Saddam--all under UN auspices. Just look what the UN has done to Palestinian refugees. Regarding the UN's "help," Daniel Pipes describes it as a:

malign institution, [with] its mischievous definition, and its monstrous works.

Do you want the UN to screw up Iraq? I don't. The only way we (Britain and the U.S.) can allow the UN into Iraq is to lay down some very strong ground rules. Until the UN agrees to such rules, their involvement must be kept to a minimum.

And for all the naysayers, I would remind them of all the progress that the Coalition forces have made in Iraq: see "Timeline: Reconstruction Progress in Iraq", "Rumsfeld, Bremer Highlight Progress in Iraq" , and "'Progress in Iraq,' by Congressman Vito Fossella".

Yes, bring in other nations to help in Iraq, not to sabotage the progress to freedom, democracy, and free enterprise.