(no subject)
Mar. 24th, 2003 09:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xatalantaxI'm interested to hear what people think of these recommended courses of action for after the fighting is over:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-taheri032403.asp
I don't think much of the recommendation about France, Germany, and Russia, but at this point, at least, that is a reaction of scorn rather than considered judgment. I haven't thought about what would actually be best in the end.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-taheri032403.asp
I don't think much of the recommendation about France, Germany, and Russia, but at this point, at least, that is a reaction of scorn rather than considered judgment. I haven't thought about what would actually be best in the end.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-03-24 06:40 am (UTC)Another thing that the article didn't mention but should have, dispite how I feel about W or about the war (against it but because W shouldn't have fought this war until afganistan was stable, al qeada was down and our allies were in) is that W and his military team are fighting as humane a war as you can (and still have a reasonable chance of winning). W needs to bring that to the light as a side affect of freeing the Iraqi people and letting them speak.
The hardest parts of this process is coming up, I pray that Iraq does not become Lebabon, only worse. I also pray that the hard liners in congress don't simply choose another strongman and put him up (some (especially ashcroft) really like the MEK backed NLA? The Shiite terrorist group that is anti iran) and that is scary....
cool article though
no subject
Date: 2003-03-24 08:40 am (UTC)Just out of curiosity, why? I know your reasoning on the last one (and I'm sure you know why I disagree), but I'm confused on the first two.
Personally I think the real reason for this war is #2, in an island hoping sense. The administration has decided, in my view, that as long as the US needs to be friendly with the House of Saud (friendly, hell, we kiss their ass compared to any country on the planet) the fight against Bin Laden et al isn't going anywhere. The best thing in this theory is a Middle East democracy in an Islamic country (tangentally, the same is probably the only thing that can lead to real productive talks between Isreal and the PA) that is friendly to us, especially in an oil rich country. Such a friend would enable us to tell the House of Saud where to get off and create the most important change needed to put Bin Laden and his friends back in the minor leagues on their way to has beens (the later will take time regardless).
This is where I think some of the hardliners (Wolfowitz et al) showed up after 9/11. Having come to the above conclusion there are two logical candidates: Iraq and Iran. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, but there were enough mid-level people who've been committed (for various reasons good and bad) to change in Iraq that I don't think the issue got a good airing (personally, I think Iran was the better option for several reasons, although it is also the harder one).
As for your strong man fears, I concur, but I'm fairly sure this Administration is committed, as part of a long term strategy, to democracy in Iraq. I think the (looks like discarded) idea of a military governor stems from that: a distrust of anyone put in power before elections with regards to having elections, so we'll just do it.
I also think we need to go to the UN after, but for different reasons. With what's already out about Russia and assuming similar will come out about France (it started to before the war), a Bush return to the UN would repair most if not all the damage and cripple the credibility of France (and to a lesser degree Russia) by showing that they were the true intransigents not us, especially if France follows through with their threatened veto on that issue. Not going back to the UN proves the opposite, that we don't care at all.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-24 10:27 am (UTC)Re Wolfowitz and the neocons
If I understand their world view - The US has been a force of general good for the world, giving it 50 odd years of world peace (developing nations only) and making the US the supreme monetary and military power in the world. We want to continue this for as long as possible. What's good for the US is good for the developed world. The middle east is a trouble spot. The one who controls the oil, controls the world (short term 20-50 years). The oil crisis of the 70s showed us this. The increase in oil prices the past 2 years proved this. The US needs a friendly, stable regime to ensure a flow of oil to us, and potentially have the ability to cut off enemies. This is sort of the Kissinger plan as outlined in the early 70s.
This is all well and good if you plan to have an empire or beleive that American interests are all that really matter (I'm not saying this is a bad viewpoint mind you, being aware of self interest is a good thing). And from that point of view, I can see its defense (I don't agree with much of it, but then again there is a lot there to work with). The issue I have is that it now turns the US into every other power that ever existed and with that, we aren't handling all that much better and, granted this is a 30 year plan but its still amazingly short sighted in my mind and basically sews the seeds of its downfall as its being built up. And its sorta been proven that kissingers policy with regards to the rest of the world, in my mind failed. You can directly link many of the worlds hot spots to him (or the british empire as a co worker used to say ;-) and much of the US support for horrific regimes goes back to him as well. Thus why we are stuck with the Saud family, why we supported the Shaw...and Saddam...
Now Iran.
Invade Iran, is that what you are saying? Are you smoking crack? I mean I know that is on the W's radar screen and that scares the shit out of me. There is no *way* that can be justified. The screen of rightful intervention that they are using for Iraq won't hold. The entire Muslim world (and the EU and most likely all but one of our allies (hello Israel)) would go against us (rightly so on that one) plus the work we are doing in Iran now is beginning to pay off (more secular leaders emerging, many friends in the military there etc) that to throw that away...well extreme short sightedness would be an understatement. Now a covert operation supporting regime change there...well that I'd support but you can't link the US to that.
Our current government truly believes in the big stick foreign policy, and that unilateral action gets the US in more trouble and creates more resentment then I think they realize. I truly think that a better president (Bush Sr or Clinton) could have gotten UN approval, could have gotten world backing, and would have just in general handled this better. My biggest issue with this whole mess is that W is a spoiled rich boy who feels entitled to everything and gets pissy when things don't go his way. The truly sad part is he treats the rest of the world the with the same sort of disdain he treats the american people to. Well at least 99% of the american people, he still loves big business (halburton already has contracts on the rebuilding of iraq. How sick is that)
no subject
Date: 2003-03-24 11:00 am (UTC)So, we can't walk and chew gum at the same time? While the complaints about the follow through in Afganistan are valid, they don't mean we can't pursue other policies at the same time, we've certainly engaged in much more complex operations before. Personally, I think building a stable Afganistan is a mistake...it should be partitioned and merged into surrounding nations...while more problematic in the short term it probably will be more stable in the long run, modern Afganistan is a British creation. The conservatism (in the sense of preserving European colonial boundaries) that we've had the past decade is going to fail (and fail in a very ugly manner) in the long run.
Same for the first responders issue.
This is all well and good if you plan to have an empire or beleive that American interests are all that really matter
In an era when during military action in Bosnia members of Congress (Democrats) proclaimed that the great VIRTUE of our intervention in Bosnia was that there was no US interest involved that the opposite should soon come to rule the roost is unsuprising. That said I think their prominance in this administration is as much accident (they had an answer to an immediate problem. Prior to 9/11 the Bush administration was much more isolationist than assertive.
I think you misassign a lot to Kissenger that has origins before him. The Shah was a product of Eisenhower's love of anything but military force and one can argue the House of Saud is as well (Kissenger probably would have backed a real Oil War in the 70s had it been politically viable). Saddam may be more his issue, but I tend to assign it more to Reagan (and a little to Carter) due to an overly antagonistic Iran policy 79-82 or so (again, a legacy in the long run of Ike, who looking back damned near lost us the Cold War after Truman with Marshall and your hero Aachenson got us off to a good start). Not that I'm a huge fan of Kissenger (although you can't dismiss real politik outright, embracing it does just what you said), but sometimes I think he has become too convient a target.
As for Iran, no...guess I wasn't clear. I was suggesting if your long term strategy to end Islamic Fundamentalist terror and stabilize the Middle East is to create a US friendly, Islamic democracy in the Middle East you had two options: overthrow Saddam or help the forces opposing theocracy in Iran succeed. The former is easier, in large part because it is a military intervention. However, based on many issues I think the later has more chance of success (Iran has the needed structures in place, the population is attuned to it, the population is pushing for full democracy, and finally, there is a strong PRO-US sentiment in place already). However, because it is a delicate balancing act it is much harder. Effective assertive diplomacy hasn't been something the US has done well since 1990 (Clinton got agreements, but not by being assertive...his was okay for his time, but that style is even less workable than Bush right now IMHO and this Bush isn't the strongest diplomat we've hard...I won't argue he is). So I was on the same page as you (except for the covert stuff...the Sadinists soured me on proxy wars and the more I've learned about Ike the less I like the idea...I think the long term cost is higher when it comes out and it ALWAYS comes out).
However, given no one, left or right, has put serious effort into Iran in two decades, the huge political cost to making friends with Iran within the US and the fact that several mid-level people already had a working Iraq answer to the grand strategy idea (which dates back to the last administration), is workable on paper (if a longer bet to my mind).
no subject
Date: 2003-03-24 11:01 am (UTC)And you know how I feel about it being long past time for our "allies" to get told what's what (when in some NATO countries the view is American servicemen are automatically at fault in auto accidents for being in country [1] I have no need for them).
As for Halburton, first, I have yet to see anything but rumors. Second, fact is maybe three-four companies in the world can do that work (oil field infastructure) and get >90% of those contracts (after the Navy my father was in the oil business so I know many of these companies as people friends worked for). To not use them in Iraq would be stupid.
As for how Bush treats the public, that's a red/blue issue...believe me, lots of us felt that same treatment from Clinton, but feel nothing but respect from Bush...see jhimm's post on the split in this country for the best summary I've seen.
[1] First saw this in Naples, Italy, but have reports it is more common.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-24 12:50 pm (UTC)1) we've been working with the Iranian military since Reagan. We have a lot of friends there. But W raised the scales by placing them in the axis of evil. Why? I totally agree that a well played out diplomatic policy towards Iran would be wonderful, but I don't think the current government is capable of this. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to think of one that could....maybe bush sr...
1a) subsidiary of Halburton - I heard it on pacifica, again consider the source but they don't falisify news (they skew left, but never create). The contract is classified but deals with creating a clean up plan and assigning money.
2)Clinton was actually quite conservative. But honestly, W is quite bad in my mind. He is against clean air for cryin out loud! and the latest tax cuts? Cuts to the VAs? Social programs? 1 in 5 children in america lives below the poverty line, and texas is one of the worst states. still. What W is doing is making this trend intensify. Where are his cuts coming? Social services. What do we get? Cancelled treaties and star wars. Then Scalia saying that the people of the US enjoy too many freedoms and that they should be scaled back in times of war? Hell one of the reasons I'm left is because if you treat the poor like crap they will feel justified to rise up and kill you. And I can deal with conservative leaders, so far I think Romney is doing a decent job. McCain proved himself in how he listened to the people during his presidential run, Dole was one of our greatest statesmen in the past 40 years (not saying much mind you) but W is just....I still can't believe he is the president.
2a) yeah, I put too much against Kissinger, but its just so damn easy!!! He is just such a cause of world problems that its simple to just blame it all on him (or the british empire)
2b) Carter,ohhh don't get me started...one of the most overrated men of the 20th century. Yes he has had a major hand in iran and iraq.
and in further messing up our relations with s. america. Yeah, a real humanitarian my butt.
2c) Had the right not played dirty and gone after Clinton's indiscretions (the fact that Dole didn't makes Dole that much better a man then the idiots in the house and senate) I think you would have seen a more focused policy. He started strong for the first 4-5 years of his presidency, and then he got off track, unfocused. The cohesive plan failed to materialize and simply dissolved.
oh and W really is clinton lite, without the finesse and brains (though W is a lot smarter then the press gives him credit for). At least clinton masked his panderings to his major money supporters (or tried to) W just doesnt care to even cover it. Which is worse? I dunno they both suck.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-24 07:13 am (UTC)Keep the Turks and the Iranians out of Iraq. Check. The Turks more than the Iranians because border clashes with them could help weaken the mullahs in Tehran enough for the Iranian people to revolt. Don't invade Iran though. For this reason Turkey will probably be a bigger threat than Iran. Keeping the Kurds from declaring independence can help here and also help reshape Iraq. The Kurds already have a good start on democracy, it would be a very good thing to tie them to the rest of Iraq, probably as a federal republic of 3 or 4 united states of Iraq.
The White House has already made a point that the Food for Oil program is run by the UN and that they see no reason to change that. Of course with a new regime the sanctions will disappear so the Food for Oil program will shift to a humanitarian aid program.
Of course we punish France, Germany, Russia, and China. Though we don't have to do it by cutting them out of the bidding for reconstruction contracts. (Not like they would probably be able to submit the winning bids anyway.) First off we punish Germany (and Russia) by shifting our European basing eastward. We punish France by getting more involved in Africa via the President's announced AIDS programs and using that to help de-colonize France. We punish China by working on improving our relations with India (Pakistan will feel compelled to improve their relations as well being sandwiched between India and a now-friendly Afghanistan) and by inquiring about terrorist networks in Tibet. And we punish Russia (and China) by going to Mars.
Yep, keep Iraq within the Arab League, OPEC, etc. We want them to influence the other regimes in the region.
Wipe out the current Iraqi military leadership which as with all dictatorships concentrates power and responsibilty to the small corps of loyalty at the top. The rest of the military needs to be allowed to develop a sense of pride and duty.
As for the UN, the only resolution to introduce is the one for lifting the sanctions and declaring the 17 other UNSC resolutions as being fulfilled. And that is when you turn over the humanitarian relief efforts to the UN. Basically an "OK, we did the job you couldn't do, let's see if you can handle something simplisme."
no subject
Date: 2003-03-24 09:01 am (UTC)and thus expose German security to the dangers of an invasion from Denmark? Right, because France hasn't done anything about AIDS in Africa. Musharraf is already quite aware of the need to be America's partner, it's his people that you need to impress. And the worst way to do that is to back them up against a wall. Though, you're on a good track by talking about making Afghanistan friendlier ??? do you have anything that actually backs this up? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity, not sarcasm, particularly since Tibet's history of non-violence and their Buddhist faith makes them an unlikely shelter for al-Qaeda and give them a wink and a smile on Chechnya, right?
apologies if that came off as overly harsh, but talking about "punishment" and almost encouraging diplomacy-via-humiliation is rather petty and counter-productive. much of the international resistance to America's war on Iraq is because of anxiety over American unilateralism ... you can defuse a lot of this simply by allowing more nations to cooperate with you and valuing the contributions that they can make and the differences that they hold, rather than belittling them for disagreeing with you.
atalanta, I pretty much agree with most of the points that's laid out in that article, and if you'll recall I had a lot of the issues with the distinct lack of a reconstruction plan prior to the start of the war. I think that one thing I would add is to expand the UN's role beyond first aid and medical care. An interim peacekeeping regime under UN auspices would be far less controversial than a military occupation (and is also why I have and still do argue for a multilateral approach to this issue) and, like Kosovo, could aid in the transition to democracy.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-24 09:24 am (UTC)My only question is how does one do that when one of the major players is openly working against you reflexively France working against the US and/or Britain while claiming to be their friends is nothing new.
Or when, by refusing to take the short end of the stick, you are declared to be not cooperating. Kyoto's baseline year was choosen such that the US was the only country facing cuts in CO2 emissions among the top three economies and the most drastic in the top ten: Japan as just off their last economic peak so had maximized emissions, Germany's baseline included all the highly poluting industry from just integrated East Germany, and the US was at the bottom of its last recession. As a result, Germany got more than required just by modernizing the East, Japan was well below their target due to their moribund economy, and the US economy, in the middle of recent growth, was looking at sever cuts. While you can argue given the reasoning that was fair politically telling one country they have to cut while the rest of the world can grow is only going to engender the response we got first in the US Senate and then with the Bush Administration.
Yet today when we ask for cooperation in North Korea we get told we need to do it alone.
Has the US attitude in the past years damaged relations? Sure, but that US attitude didn't grow in a vacuum. A lot of Americans, especially those whose overseas experience is from the military (which constitutes a huge part of Bush's base), have gotten their fill of a world that expects us to do what they want while they spit on us and we protect them (travel overseas as a serviceman is a vastly different experience than that of a tourist), especially with other industrialized countries (I got better treatment in countries with real beefs like Columbia and Venezula than in Korea, France, or Italy). It was going to boil over sooner or later. I suspect a lot of us would be a lot less strident about backing Bush in telling the world to go to hell if some of those arguing the world's case for the ugly American with no redeeming features would look at the ugly European who has redeeming features as well.
Right, because France hasn't done anything about AIDS in Africa.
If France's AIDS work in African trumps their ongoing rape of the continent then why doesn't our economic neglect balance our AIDS neglect, not to mention our attempt to feed people (and provide the stability to do so? This is a prime example of what I'm talking about above. The American deaths chronicled in Blackhawk Down were part of an operation whose's larger objective was feeding starving Africans. The military incidents were related to stopping people who were killing UN relief workers and stealing food. So, America spills blood to feed Africans and we're evil and imperialistic and wrong because we didn't do enough about AIDS. Meanwhile, France uses its military to continued looting the Ivory Coast but it's AIDS work cancel that.
And then we're supposed to understand that we're hated.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-24 10:52 am (UTC)Disapproval for the antics of statesmen can be resolved as it has always been resolved, in the private face-to-face interactions that has always characterized diplomacy. You gain additional leverage by shifting public opinion against them, and you don't do this by alienating their population.
The nuanced view of trying to punish the regime without punishing the people is something that will prove to be valuable beyond this war.
With your whole issue with the duality of Americans being asked for help and being spat on. People have a right to be proud of their nation, but may not necessarily be proud of their politicians. Speaking as a Filipino, and as someone whose best friend is Korean -- many nations are still dealing with the identity issues of post-WWII liberation/decolonization, and part of that manifests itself in a sense of nationalism that rejects any sort of overt foreign military presence (regardless of how necessary that presence may be) because it's seen by a certain segment of the population as an inherent failure of the nation. And, even in this case, it's better to address the dignity of the people who aren't spitting on you than lecture the nation as a whole on their ungratefulness.
I'm well aware that France hasn't been far from altruistic in its treatment of Africa, but then, so has the US. And I think that a new commitment to AIDS by the US is commendable, but just a single step in undoing a legacy of exploitation and its arrogant to think that this is some new, unique, heroic effort that will trump French influence.
Besides, the impression I got was that France was called in to stop the looting perpetrated by military groups and broker peace in the Ivory Coast. If that's erroneous, and if the French are actually abusing their position, do correct me.
Also, I favored the American intervention in Somalia, and thought that it was serious step backward to see the troops pull out so soon.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-24 11:11 am (UTC)And I'm all for it...see some of my other opinions on this thread...by bringing in France post-war we embarass the government doing us more long term good than any offical embargo...although I'm keeping my Freedom Fries :)
As far as the duality, the amazing thing is the more developed the country and more educated the populace (ie, the ones who should have the more nuanced understanding) are the most offensive about it. Korea, Italy, Germany, and France are, between personal experience and reports of friends in the military, are the worst. Nations with real complaints (my biggest experience of that was Panama) show it less and have many more people supportive of US troops.
that France was called in to stop the looting perpetrated by military groups and broker peace in the Ivory Coast
That's true as far as it goes, but consider:
1. Well over 75% of assets in the country are French owned and French firms are the primary employers (ie, only the government decolonized).
2. The French had hand picked their successor to the despot replaced in late 90s elections.
3. Their choice lost.
4. The rebels and military forces causing the problems were backing the losing candidate.
5. The French plan pushed on the current government included given a large portfolio in the government to the rebel's choosen leader (who just happened to be the choice of the French in the first place).
No one has proven French involvement in the uprising, but it smells bad. At the very least they're exploiting their (non-UN sanctioned) intervention for their commerical interests at least as much as a pure Oil War on the US part would.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-24 11:43 am (UTC)I am guessing here, but I imagine that discrepancy is also related to the relative ages of the nations you were referring to. Korea, Italy, Germany and France have a national image based on centuries of culture, and have national mythologies that prize a certain sense of identity (Dan-gun myth, Imperial Rome, the Volk, Zee French 'nuff said) and education only serves to reinforce that perception. The nations of Latin America and South America though, still have large components of their identity tied up with being a colony, and when not a colony, being a part of the Monroe Doctrine -- so in a certain way, living under the protection of an American military is more ingrained in their point-of-view. (which can also describe the perceptions of Filipinos who, in polls, lead all other nations in their love for the US, but individually struggle with this postcolonial teenage angst thing of trying to find a future that can be independent of American influence)
no subject
Date: 2003-03-24 10:20 am (UTC)Shifting our bases out of Germany shifts a lot of money that gets spent locally. Meanwhile we develop closer relations with the former Warsaw Pact nations which diminishes Russia's sphere of influence.
France's efforts in Africa are represented by Algerian terrorists, civil war in Cote D'Ivoire, and the coddling of Robert Mugabe whose government has gone on another killing and torture spree this past week.
India is far more populous, much more democratic, and economically closer to us than Pakistan. While we do not want to entirely abandon one of our Cold War allies (particularly a now-nuclear ally), the Cold War is over and it is well past time to start attending to those lesser evils we chose in order to defeat the greater evil. With a friendly Afghanistan now emerging, working on building our relations with India will not only give the Chinese headaches but it will help encourage Pakistan to keep up with the regional Joneses.
The Tibet question is meant to be rhetorically asked of the Chinese, as in "So, Chairman Hu, just what is the name of the terrorist network you are stamping out in Tibet?" At least the Russians can point to al Qaeda-linked terrorists in Chechnya.
"American unilateralism" is essentially a whine that America should have the audacity to believe it has national interests, unlike say France or Russia or China. It's an absurd argument and should politely be dismissed as such.
Meanwhile you want the UN to administer a post-war Iraq? Have you not heard about the UN's record in Srebenrica (http://www.hrw.org/summaries/s.bosnia9510.html) both before and after (http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/0729un.htm) US involvement? The UN has sanctioned 2 wars, and it blanched at finishing either of them. It is a body composed mostly of dictatorships punching above their weight to protect their own. Libya currently chairs the Human Rights Commission, Iran then Iraq are slated to chair the Committee on Disarmament. They have demonstrated no ability to govern and should not be given yet more chances to prove their deadly incompetence. Let them stick to the non-governmental programs they actually have a chance of succeeding at.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-24 03:35 pm (UTC)how? And lose the cheapest source of manufacturing labor the world has ever seen? Weren't you just talking about the lesser of two evils? or Canada or India or The Vatican or Ireland or Mexico or South Africa ... but then, I'm sure that they're all evil regimes that will be punished for their disobedience in due time. I'm quite familiar with the UN's record in the Balkans, thanks ... that's part of the reason why I was talking about using them post conflict. They did a pretty good job in Cambodia and Sierra Leone. Besides folks who play the "Libya as Chair of Human Rights" card obviously don't know a thing about UN politics. The chairmanship of committees and commissions are pretty much symbolic affairs -- all they control is when debates happen and how they're moderated. They can't control the group's agenda. Everything that matters in the UN happens in The Security Council where the number of folks with veto control are four democracies and one communist regime.
oh, and I'd rather base the UN's records on the number of wars that it may have prevented, rather than the number of wars that it's started. As a matter of fact, I'd be quite leery of any international group that prides itself on the number of wars that it has sanctioned.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-24 05:04 pm (UTC)The lesser of two evils in defeating the greater evil. It's defeated. Time to take care of those lesser evils. Pay attention.
You would have us smile and say "Thank you, may we have another" when other nations diplomatically spit in our faces. Screw that. It is precisely those displays of fecklessness that encouraged ever greater terrorist attacks.
The UN sex slave ring was post-combat. And the reason chairmanships are symbolic is precisely why the UN is not a governing body. It's entirely symbolic because that is all that it can be. It's a systemic condition.
Cambodia was the unilateral doing of Viet Nam. Sierra Leone was the work of that nation's neighbors. The UN had nothing to do with it. They came in after the fact to document the aftermath. Likewise with the ouster of Idi Amin from Uganda.
From your far left sourcings it's pretty obvious we will never agree.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-24 06:01 pm (UTC)and, while deplorable and scandalous and hopefully just an isolated incident, I still wonder what this has to do with the UN's possible role in postwar Iraq? Should the US armed forces be similarly discredited because of Tailhook? you're quite right. The UN isn't a governing body, but it was intentionally designed towards being unable to tell nations what to do. It was designed to encourage cooperation and generate consensus because that's the only political method for getting sovereign states to agree on international law short of coercion. If you can show me how the US acting solely in its own self-interest can foster this sense of cooperation, I'd like to hear it.
The UN went in to Cambodia after the government that Viet Name installed was embroiled in a civil war with a Khmer Rouge force backed by China and the US, and Australia led a UN peacekeeping force to bring both sides to the negotiating table and see the country towards a peaceful democratic transition. The Sierra Leone mission also fulfills a similar purpose in monitoring the ceasefire between government and rebel forces and setting up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which Mr. Taheri recommended as one of his points in the article. In both of these cases, the UN has played a vital role in enforcing the peace in a post-conflict zone and helping it find its own way on the road towards a democratic transition. Is that what one is looking for in a post-war Iraq?
Should I ask you to pay attention as well?
no subject
Date: 2003-03-24 07:48 am (UTC)