UN will set the clock back in Iraq

It appears as if some on the right are now willing to surrender to the comfort—zone urge of allowing the UN back into Iraq. This is a political compromise between Blair and Bush that will significantly harm the already finely balanced situation, and may one day, in hindsight, come to be known as having been the worst decision made by the Coalition's two main leaders.

 

The investigation into the UN 'Oil for Food' scandal has not yet begun, and without taking into consideration the fact that most Iraqis hate the UN more than they hate the Coalition, we will end up having invited that dishonest, imbecilic and tainted bureaucracy of has—been politicians — from some of the most corrupt nations in the world — to jaunt back into a position of power in Baghdad.

 

Locking the UN out of Iraq was the right decision before the war kicked off, and nothing has changed to call for a reversal of that decision. The UN opted out of influence in a post—war Iraq because, instead of agreeing to remove Saddam Hussein, the UN preferred to go to diplomatic war against the United States.

 

If this new UN involvement actually goes ahead —— and I pray that no agreement can be reached on the required resolution —— then there are many problems to come which can be safely predicted.

 

For a start, the insurgents and terrorists will target the UN, no doubt successfully, and the ensuing carnage and loss of life will be blamed on the American—led Coalition, regardless of which entity was supposed to be responsible for security. The UN blamed the Americans for the UN Baghdad HQ bombing last year —— even when it had been agreed that they would provide their own security.

 

We can also expect the UN's Brahimi and other dubious UN officials —— who all have axes to grind with the US —— to start stirring the pot of religious division amongst the Iraqi people. 

 

Instead of the relatively easy—to—deflect sniping at which the UN excels currently, they will surely follow their own politicized agenda following their re—entry into Iraq in positions of power. It would be pure folly to assume automatically that they want a successful outcome to the mission of making Iraq a viable democracy.

 

Allowing the UN cutthroats back into Iraq opens more security doors than it closes, because, in effect, the UN brings all its member nations with it. It will be opening the floodgates of political connivance with Iraq as the ideological battleground against US interests in the Middle East.

 

This is all written large. So why on earth are we even considering a UN role in Iraq?

 

It appears as if some on the right are now willing to surrender to the comfort—zone urge of allowing the UN back into Iraq. This is a political compromise between Blair and Bush that will significantly harm the already finely balanced situation, and may one day, in hindsight, come to be known as having been the worst decision made by the Coalition's two main leaders.

 

The investigation into the UN 'Oil for Food' scandal has not yet begun, and without taking into consideration the fact that most Iraqis hate the UN more than they hate the Coalition, we will end up having invited that dishonest, imbecilic and tainted bureaucracy of has—been politicians — from some of the most corrupt nations in the world — to jaunt back into a position of power in Baghdad.

 

Locking the UN out of Iraq was the right decision before the war kicked off, and nothing has changed to call for a reversal of that decision. The UN opted out of influence in a post—war Iraq because, instead of agreeing to remove Saddam Hussein, the UN preferred to go to diplomatic war against the United States.

 

If this new UN involvement actually goes ahead —— and I pray that no agreement can be reached on the required resolution —— then there are many problems to come which can be safely predicted.

 

For a start, the insurgents and terrorists will target the UN, no doubt successfully, and the ensuing carnage and loss of life will be blamed on the American—led Coalition, regardless of which entity was supposed to be responsible for security. The UN blamed the Americans for the UN Baghdad HQ bombing last year —— even when it had been agreed that they would provide their own security.

 

We can also expect the UN's Brahimi and other dubious UN officials —— who all have axes to grind with the US —— to start stirring the pot of religious division amongst the Iraqi people. 

 

Instead of the relatively easy—to—deflect sniping at which the UN excels currently, they will surely follow their own politicized agenda following their re—entry into Iraq in positions of power. It would be pure folly to assume automatically that they want a successful outcome to the mission of making Iraq a viable democracy.

 

Allowing the UN cutthroats back into Iraq opens more security doors than it closes, because, in effect, the UN brings all its member nations with it. It will be opening the floodgates of political connivance with Iraq as the ideological battleground against US interests in the Middle East.

 

This is all written large. So why on earth are we even considering a UN role in Iraq?