The "suckered" U.N.
It’s always interesting when conservatives say something that demonstrates that they really don’t believe a word Bush says.
Not long ago, Bush said,"Brahimi was the person who put together the group," Now no one really believes that, including conservatives that are positively giddy over how the U.S. “suckered” the U.N in this deal.
David Warren makes this case very clearly, “No one else will say this, so I will. The Bush administration has handled the transfer of power in Iraq more cleverly than anyone expected, including me. The summoning of the U.N. envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, looked like very bad news (a poisonous old Arab League chauvinist who brokered the sell-out of Lebanon to Syria in 1982). In grim moments, I believed the Bush people were cynically using him to wash their hands of Iraq, and as it were, dump the quagmire back in the swamp of the U.N. Instead, they froze the ground beneath Brahimi's feet, and skated rings around him, haggling behind his back with Iraq's new political heavyweights to leave him endorsing a fait accompli. If it were not vulgar, I would say the Bushies suckered the U.N. into signing on to the New Iraq through Brahimi.”
“The Americans have moreover done a superb job of playing politics, intra-Iraqis: a job of horse-trading beyond anything achieved by British imperialists in the past. I didn't agree with all the dirty tricks (and especially not with the CIA's unconscionable settling of accounts with Ahmed Chalabi, getting the Iraqis to raid his headquarters to bring him down to size), but we have a presentably benign government at the end of the day.”
But Warren forgets two very important things. First, that we are about to rely on the “swamp” of the U.N. to help us give legitimacy to Iraq’s elections. Is it really wise policy then, to undermine the U.N.’s credibility with the Iraqis? Think about that for a moment and what that says about conservatives view of the upcoming elections.
Secondly, the Iraqis are not completely buying into this government yet at all. There are some positive elements to it, but they don’t trust Allawi and as a former CIA operative, he’ll have difficulty gaining that trust.
If conservatives really believed that these upcoming elections were to be truly democratic then they would be very hesistant to destroy the U.N’s credibility. But that wouldn’t concern them if they thought the election outcome could be presented as a fait accompli just as the new interim government was.
Not a comforting thought.
Not long ago, Bush said,"Brahimi was the person who put together the group," Now no one really believes that, including conservatives that are positively giddy over how the U.S. “suckered” the U.N in this deal.
David Warren makes this case very clearly, “No one else will say this, so I will. The Bush administration has handled the transfer of power in Iraq more cleverly than anyone expected, including me. The summoning of the U.N. envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, looked like very bad news (a poisonous old Arab League chauvinist who brokered the sell-out of Lebanon to Syria in 1982). In grim moments, I believed the Bush people were cynically using him to wash their hands of Iraq, and as it were, dump the quagmire back in the swamp of the U.N. Instead, they froze the ground beneath Brahimi's feet, and skated rings around him, haggling behind his back with Iraq's new political heavyweights to leave him endorsing a fait accompli. If it were not vulgar, I would say the Bushies suckered the U.N. into signing on to the New Iraq through Brahimi.”
“The Americans have moreover done a superb job of playing politics, intra-Iraqis: a job of horse-trading beyond anything achieved by British imperialists in the past. I didn't agree with all the dirty tricks (and especially not with the CIA's unconscionable settling of accounts with Ahmed Chalabi, getting the Iraqis to raid his headquarters to bring him down to size), but we have a presentably benign government at the end of the day.”
But Warren forgets two very important things. First, that we are about to rely on the “swamp” of the U.N. to help us give legitimacy to Iraq’s elections. Is it really wise policy then, to undermine the U.N.’s credibility with the Iraqis? Think about that for a moment and what that says about conservatives view of the upcoming elections.
Secondly, the Iraqis are not completely buying into this government yet at all. There are some positive elements to it, but they don’t trust Allawi and as a former CIA operative, he’ll have difficulty gaining that trust.
If conservatives really believed that these upcoming elections were to be truly democratic then they would be very hesistant to destroy the U.N’s credibility. But that wouldn’t concern them if they thought the election outcome could be presented as a fait accompli just as the new interim government was.
Not a comforting thought.
posted by Zack at 11:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home