The Democrats' unilateral war policy

It wasn't too long ago that the Bush Administration suffered the barbs of Democrat leaders who decried US "unilateralism" in Iraq. As recently as April 23, 2007 Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) "painted the president's war policy as unilateral."

But now the Democrats' move to pull US Forces from Iraq would constitute a unilateral abandonment, and override the will of the vaunted international community. All of a sudden it is the Democrats who are behaving like unilateral cowboys and breaking away from the accepted international framework.

In June of 2004, the US presence in Iraq was approved by the United Nations in an overwhelming multilateral fashion. This CNN report explained the views of the "international community" about US forces remaining in Iraq. By unanimous vote fifteen members of the UN Security Council approved the resolution that says the multinational force will serve "at the request of the incoming interim government of Iraq" and that the force can be asked to leave at anytime.

That's right, the "occupation" of Iraq ended almost three years ago when it became a UN mandate to stabilize and provide security for Iraq.

Remember how apoplectic the Democrat leadership became because France, Germany, and Russia opposed the US war against Saddam Hussein and President Bush went "cowboy" - or "went it alone"? Well I guess the Democrats don't need FGR approval after all, since all three approved the measure that the Democrats now seek to unilaterally overturn:

"Germany supports this resolution as an important step towards the restoration of full sovereignty of the Iraqi interim government in all relevant areas and towards Iraqi ownership," said Germany's U.N. ambassador, Gunter Pleuger.

French Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere noted that the recent negotiations were "demanding," but that the world body considered France's concerns.

"Our main concern has been taken into account, and this is why we think it is a good resolution," he said.

Putin called the resolution a "major step forward."

UN leader Kofi Anon chimed in:

"I believe it is a genuine expression of the will of the international community ... to help the Iraqi people take charge of their own political destiny -- in peace and freedom -- under a sovereign government."

The fledgling Iraqi government weighed in when its' Foreign Minister said of the resolution that "We need these forces. It is an Iraqi need, more than an American or coalition need. The consequences would be catastrophic." He also reminded the council that Iraq had been liberated from Saddam. Considering that all fifteen members of the Security Council authorized US forces to stay and support the Iraqi government, the concept of Iraqi liberation was finally recognized by action at the UN, an act that the Democrats now want to unilaterally abandon.

Since 2004, a second resolution (1723) has been passed with unanimous approval again that says the Iraqi government should continue to transition to a democratic government under the protection of the Multi-National Forces (MNF) until it can provide for its' own security. While Russia and France made clear that they expected an end point for US forces to withdrawal, even they did not specify a timetable.

The measure also recognized progress in Iraq which Democrat leadership and their media accomplices have continuously refused to concede:

"Welcoming the progress made to date in the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces as well as in the transfer of security responsibilities to those forces in Muthanna and Dhi Qar provinces and looking forward to the continuation of that process during 2007"

Anybody expect to hear Congressman Murtha "supporting the troops" by touting their success? Me neither.

The 2006 measure goes where the Democrats will not by recognizing that Iraq is under attack by terrorists and that it is the responsibility of all nations to fight terrorism:

"Reaffirming that acts of terrorism must not be allowed to disrupt Iraq's political and economic transition, and further reaffirming the obligations of Member States under resolution 1618 (2005) of 4 August 2005 and other relevant resolutions and international conventions with respect, inter alia, to terrorist activities in and from Iraq or against its citizens,

Contrast that to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who still calls Iraq a "distraction" from the fight against terrorism.

A bizarre condition now exists in which the United Nations provides a more reasonable and realistic assessment of the conditions in Iraq than our own Democratic Party leadership. The American Democratic Party has now moved to the left of France and Russia.

Who is unilateral now?

Ray Robison is co-author of the book Both in One Trench, a blogger, and a frequent contributor to American Thinker.
It wasn't too long ago that the Bush Administration suffered the barbs of Democrat leaders who decried US "unilateralism" in Iraq. As recently as April 23, 2007 Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) "painted the president's war policy as unilateral."

But now the Democrats' move to pull US Forces from Iraq would constitute a unilateral abandonment, and override the will of the vaunted international community. All of a sudden it is the Democrats who are behaving like unilateral cowboys and breaking away from the accepted international framework.

In June of 2004, the US presence in Iraq was approved by the United Nations in an overwhelming multilateral fashion. This CNN report explained the views of the "international community" about US forces remaining in Iraq. By unanimous vote fifteen members of the UN Security Council approved the resolution that says the multinational force will serve "at the request of the incoming interim government of Iraq" and that the force can be asked to leave at anytime.

That's right, the "occupation" of Iraq ended almost three years ago when it became a UN mandate to stabilize and provide security for Iraq.

Remember how apoplectic the Democrat leadership became because France, Germany, and Russia opposed the US war against Saddam Hussein and President Bush went "cowboy" - or "went it alone"? Well I guess the Democrats don't need FGR approval after all, since all three approved the measure that the Democrats now seek to unilaterally overturn:

"Germany supports this resolution as an important step towards the restoration of full sovereignty of the Iraqi interim government in all relevant areas and towards Iraqi ownership," said Germany's U.N. ambassador, Gunter Pleuger.

French Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere noted that the recent negotiations were "demanding," but that the world body considered France's concerns.

"Our main concern has been taken into account, and this is why we think it is a good resolution," he said.

Putin called the resolution a "major step forward."

UN leader Kofi Anon chimed in:

"I believe it is a genuine expression of the will of the international community ... to help the Iraqi people take charge of their own political destiny -- in peace and freedom -- under a sovereign government."

The fledgling Iraqi government weighed in when its' Foreign Minister said of the resolution that "We need these forces. It is an Iraqi need, more than an American or coalition need. The consequences would be catastrophic." He also reminded the council that Iraq had been liberated from Saddam. Considering that all fifteen members of the Security Council authorized US forces to stay and support the Iraqi government, the concept of Iraqi liberation was finally recognized by action at the UN, an act that the Democrats now want to unilaterally abandon.

Since 2004, a second resolution (1723) has been passed with unanimous approval again that says the Iraqi government should continue to transition to a democratic government under the protection of the Multi-National Forces (MNF) until it can provide for its' own security. While Russia and France made clear that they expected an end point for US forces to withdrawal, even they did not specify a timetable.

The measure also recognized progress in Iraq which Democrat leadership and their media accomplices have continuously refused to concede:

"Welcoming the progress made to date in the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces as well as in the transfer of security responsibilities to those forces in Muthanna and Dhi Qar provinces and looking forward to the continuation of that process during 2007"

Anybody expect to hear Congressman Murtha "supporting the troops" by touting their success? Me neither.

The 2006 measure goes where the Democrats will not by recognizing that Iraq is under attack by terrorists and that it is the responsibility of all nations to fight terrorism:

"Reaffirming that acts of terrorism must not be allowed to disrupt Iraq's political and economic transition, and further reaffirming the obligations of Member States under resolution 1618 (2005) of 4 August 2005 and other relevant resolutions and international conventions with respect, inter alia, to terrorist activities in and from Iraq or against its citizens,

Contrast that to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who still calls Iraq a "distraction" from the fight against terrorism.

A bizarre condition now exists in which the United Nations provides a more reasonable and realistic assessment of the conditions in Iraq than our own Democratic Party leadership. The American Democratic Party has now moved to the left of France and Russia.

Who is unilateral now?

Ray Robison is co-author of the book Both in One Trench, a blogger, and a frequent contributor to American Thinker.