Originally posted by Headshot
Although the situation will be exploited, it wont be enough for the UN to do much.
The UN isn't going to do much no matter what. The reasons for that are many, but we've covered that in another thread.
We seem to have two basic debates going on here. First,
does either the UN or the United States have a legal/moral/political justification to use military force against Iraq? Second, if we do have such justification
is it a good idea to do so? It is the second question that is more important in the long run. The first question will largely be forgotten if there is military action and it turns out to be beneficial for all.
The second question is far more troubling. Let's say for the sake of argument that the answer to the first question is yes, the US has justification to lead a coalition against Saddam Hussein. It seems obvious that President Bush and his advisors are convinced that military action will work with light casualties, and that the coalition will be able to quickly accomplish all military tasks assigned to it. It is also obvious that they believe the political fallout from all this will do more good than harm. They are convinced that none of the other Arab powers in the region will directly intervene, nor will a US occupation of Iraq bring unending
jihad attacks against Americans.
On this I'm far less certain of the answer. I tend to believe that if a unified UN with support from diverse nations all over the world spoke with one voice and led a military campaign against Baghdad, it would be difficult for most of the inhabitants of the region to philosophically side will Saddam, even if he is a brother Arab. The attack would have a political and ethical legitimacy that would virtually guarantee success in the long run. If, on the other hand, the US attacks Iraq alone, over the objections of most of the world, it's difficult to imagine any scenario where victorious US forces wouldn't be seen as conquering imperialists. US forces stationed on Iraqi soil to protect a fledgling government and help with rebuilding might be seen as crusaders. Even if the Iraqi people who have long been brutally suppressed by Saddam greet the Americans with open arms, the princes and sheiks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Iran all have a stake in how that nation develops. They will in one form or another seek to undermine any attempt by America to build a stable democracy in the region. They fear what that would mean for themselves. Religious and anti-Western zealots would have a field day stirring up anti-American feelings in the occupied territory. It doesn't take a slide rule to figure out where that would likely lead.
I'm convinced that the world has the moral and ethical right to act against Saddam. I'm not convinced that it is a good idea to do so. President Bush must come before the world and lay out a far more specific agenda of what he intends to do. Military force must be the last option. If it does come, it must be laid out to the American people with very clear and specific goals and objectives.
