Foget the U.N.

Nothing I find on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal should surprise me, but today they are very critical of Bush’s speech on Monday, and the reason is his reliance on the U.N.

This editorial basically holds that we should forget about the U.N. and do everything ourselves – the go it alone approach which is surely doomed to failure. But this of course doesn’t stop the Journal from advocating it:

Unfortunately, this progress hasn't been matched on the political side, where Mr. Bush has ceded control over events to our friends at the United Nations. In going back to that body, Mr. Bush no doubt hopes to placate his critics and gain international cover for the U.S. presence in Iraq. But the cost in lost American leverage will be high, and perhaps dangerously so.

To head off that possibility, Mr. Bush would be wise to politely but firmly inform everyone involved that the continued presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is indeed up to that country's interim government, but it is a take it or leave it offer not subject to case-by-case veto. A genuine status-of-forces pact can be negotiated later with an elected government.

To head off that possibility, Mr. Bush would be wise to politely but firmly inform everyone involved that the continued presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is indeed up to that country's interim government, but it is a take it or leave it offer not subject to case-by-case veto. A genuine status-of-forces pact can be negotiated later with an elected government.

Of course, what the Journal is saying is that Iraq shouldn’t have real sovereignty – they have no right to oversee the occupying troops in their own country – the US should be free to launch offensive raids against Iraqis without consulting the “Governing Council.”

What better way to keep the hatred against us high and create more insurgents? A recipe for Quagmire indeed.