Here it is in today’s paper. (It’s also archived here.)
The headline is good (if not terribly snappy… but then, who needs snappy?): The U.N. can end these wars: It alone has enough clout to bring about peace in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the body of the piece I write:
- [V]ictory in Iraq and Afghanistan … will depend on defeating or defanging antigovernment insurgencies and helping midwife a governing system that:
- • Enjoys domestic political “legitimacy,” that is, it has the support of the vast majority of the country’s citizens,
• Is sustainably able to deliver public security and other basic services to citizens throughout the whole country, and
• Has the tools to resolve in nonviolent ways the still-unresolved and yet-to-emerge conflicts among its citizens.
What we don’t want is a replay of what happened in Vietnam, where the US declared “victory” but then withdrew humiliatingly, under fire, leaving the victors free to enact brutal retribution against our former allies.
Only one body can provide the leadership that’s needed to defeat the insurgencies in both Iraq and – over a longer time frame – Afghanistan. That is the United Nations. Though it’s far from a perfect institution, only the UN has the vital quality of worldwide legitimacy that allows it to mobilize global resources and expertise and make the tough decisions required in these two countries.
Regarding Iraq, we need to ask the UN to urgently convene two negotiating forums. One would sort out the thorny political dilemmas that remain inside the country. The other would bring together Iraq, all its neighbors, the US, and perhaps also the Arab League to agree on a plan for the drawdown – or total withdrawal – of US forces in a way that will not result in Iraq’s neighbors moving in to exploit the resulting vacuum.
Americans have a similar need for a greatly increased UN leadership in Afghanistan…
Anyway, go read the whole thing and tell me what you think.
What I think is that you are completely wrong (sorry). The problem in Iraq and Afghanistan is not insurgencies against governments, primarily because there is no effective national government in either place. The principal fighting in both countries has been against the brutal US military and its allies, domestic and international. That is not an insurgency, that is occupation resistance. Think France, 1943. (There is a relative lull in Iraq at the moment because US Sunni enemies have been bought off and the Sadrists are biding their time.)
The United Nations Secretary General, as I have posted in detail before, is a supine US lackey. No hope there for any meaningful compromises with US enemies.
The “clout” in these matters, notwithstanding world federalist thinking, lies with the citizens of the countries, with whom we need to re-engage.
Finally, the reference to Vietnam and the “retribution against our former allies” after the US withdrawal is obscene, considering how the US laid waste to so much of Vietnam and so many millions of its people. The simple fact of the Vietnam end-story is that the US army was broken, torn apart by dissension in the ranks which resulted in widespread mission refusal and retribution (fragging) by the troops against their leaders. There was absolutely no chance of “victory.” Now you don’t want US troops to withdraw “humiliatingly, under fire.” Ask yourself: “Why are US troops under fire?” The answer is a simple human one: Nobody likes a brutal military occupation, with wanton killing, imprisonment and torture. Waterboarding is slightly more humiliating then withdrawing, I’d say.
Ban ki-Moon, a weak US lackey, is going to “defeat the insurgencies in both Iraq and – over a longer time frame – Afghanistan?” Sure, when pigs fly.
Well, you asked. I guess that I was more affected by “Re-Engage” then you were. Fancy that!
Helena, I am astonished and disappointed that you based this article on the idea that what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan is anti-government insurgencies! You give both “governments” far too much legitimacy, and it seems to me you are helping to promote the Bush propaganda in this way.
In fact, I have always objected to the use of the term insurgency in these contexts because it is misleading and propagandistic for the exact reason that it implies rebellion against a legitimate civil authority and deflects public attention from what is really going on, which is resistance to an illegitimate, brutal, and unacceptable foreign occupation and domination. After all, in both countries the “governments” (and their military and security forces) are little more than extensions of the occupation, Maliki’s recent apparent yielding to overwhelming public opinion notwithstanding.
What happened in Iraq in 1991 in the wake of the war was an insurgency (and it was brutally crushed, with the active and passive assistance of the Bush I regime). There has been no insurgency in Iraq since 2003.
And by the way, I think that if Maliki could have gotten away with it he would have signed away the country to Bush by now. Fortunately for Iraqis, the dirty business was leaked before he could sign away the country, and he has been forced, for the sake of political survival, to heed the Iraqi people. Let’s hope he finds the pressures from public opinion stronger than the pressures from his American sponsors and refuses to sign anything. It doesn’t matter why he does the right thing so much as it matters THAT he does the right thing.
Would somebody please explain this piece from the Jerusalem Times to me.
We watched horrified two years ago as the IAF bombed Lebanon flat.
Now Tel Aviv is complaining about the Lebanese deploying weapons to defend themselves against a repeat.
While Resolution 1701 demanded “the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon,” Hizbullah has never been better armed. While it called on Lebanon to support the cease-fire, Beirut now explicitly threatens Israel. And while it demanded that “no sales or supply of arms and related material” reach Lebanon – Syria, Iran (and, less brazenly, Russia) are systematically flouting 1701.
WHY ARE Israeli officials raising the decibel level now given that Hizbullah has been violating 1701 practically from the get-go? And what to make of Hizbullah’s menacing declaration last week that it would treat as “provocative” and “unacceptable” Israeli overflights of Lebanese airspace?
There is no denying that Israeli aircraft fly reconnaissance missions over Lebanon gathering imperative intelligence and monitoring Hizbullah’s hostile intentions. Now that Lebanon stands poised to adopt Hizbullah’s anti-Israel crusade as national policy, it would be ludicrous to treat Lebanese airspace as sacrosanct.
Hizbullah appears set to receive a new generation of anti-aircraft missiles that would jeopardize the IAF’s intelligence-gathering capabilities. If, for instance, Syria facilitates the delivery of these Russian-manufactured, SA-8 self-propelled anti-aircraft missiles – or, more ominously, the SA-15 now operating in Iran – Israeli decision-makers may have to consider a preemptive strike.
No weapons at all should be reaching Hizbullah; but channeling dangerously destabilizing surface-to-air missiles that could blind Israel to the threats emanating from the north is simply asking for trouble. Responsible actors in the international community need to take Israel’s warnings with the utmost seriousness and act to close the spigot spewing weapons into Lebanon.
Oh Bother!
Posted on the wrong topic, and the italicised quote should go all the way to the sentence that finishes “to close the spigot spewing weapons into Lebanon.”
(in case anyone thinks I am encouraging more slaughter in Lebanon)
“The problem in Iraq and Afghanistan is not insurgencies against governments, primarily because there is no effective national government in either place. The principal fighting in both countries has been against the brutal US military and its allies, domestic and international. That is not an insurgency, that is occupation resistance.”
“Helena, I am astonished and disappointed that you based this article on the idea that what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan is anti-government insurgencies! You give both ‘governments’ far too much legitimacy.
Insurgency of the Peanut Gallery
CLOBBERINOPOLIS 5 August 2008 (NNS) — Régime spokesbeings have thus far offered no comment on claims of “a shameful sell-out to the forces of illegitimacy and Turtle Bay.” That is the way one anti-régime poster widely posted around the streets of the capital describes the latest turn in the ever-volatile politics of Clobberin.
One aether-based analyst for the independent Wolkenkuckucksheimer Beobachter has advised the Nowhere News Service that “Il Conduttore has only himself to blame. Not only did he say what he said at Eddyville, he positively dared anybody to disagree.” The analyst was referring to a brief response to journalists by President Aneleh on arrival at the airport here, “Anyway, go read the whole thing and tell me what you think.” The analyst, who specified that his name be withheld, added “It looks as if some of Aneleh’s subjects have done exactly that.”
Yesterday at Eddyville, a minor provincial town in the extreme northeast, Aneleh affirmed that Clobberinites “have a need for a greatly increased UN leadership.” Such sentiments are unremarkable in that region of the country, but elsewhere are considered extremely controversial. “The United Nations Secretary General is a supine US lackey. No hope there for any meaningful compromises!” was the response of General Nocab, one of the known insurgent leaders. Immediately after the Clobberinopolis radio station was occupied, a rebel spokesbeing identified as Rear-Colonel Nirish suggested in the course of a lengthy broadcast harangue that compromise may not have be ruled out altogether: “Let’s hope he finds the pressures from public opinion stronger than the pressures from his sponsors and refuses to sign anything!”
Reached at his vacation hideaway, NNS’s own analyst of Middle Ideologican affairs, Dr. William Morris VIII, had this to say:
“The uprising comes as no surprise to those of us who have been following the situation. It has been brewing a long time. Il Conduttore has never been on exactly the same wavelength as many of his supporters in military circles. They are, after all, military — they believe that force works. President Aneleh, on the other hand, has never hid his opinion that force does NOT work — force does not work EVER. Force CANNOT ever work. There is a good reason why you see his face so often over at the George Fox News Network.”
Morris went on to speak of a “tacit agreement” in Clobberinite ruling circles. “Until recently, General Nocab and his friends were satisfied with Aneleh’s conceding that the Muqáwama in Afghanistan and the former Iraq were justified in resorting to force. He was quite certain that they would fail, but he admitted that they had a right to try.” According to Morris, the Eddyville address means that Il Conduttore has now decided to withdraw his concession or admission. “Obviously,” he said, “no resistance movement directed against the Parliament of Man can ever be valid or legitimate from the president’s point of view, whereas Gen. Nocab and company are quite capable of. seeing the PoM as only another obstacle in their path.” Dr. Morris identified that path as tiersmondiste or “Third-Worldly” in character — whereas “Il Conduttore is obviously a plain vanilla pacifist.”
Morris concluded, “So when President Aneleh decided that both bushogenic quagmires ought to be handed over to the Security Council, or to the international community acting through some other mechanism, a break with his old coup comrades became inevitable. I don’t think any such hand-over will actually happen, myself, but if it did, all those ‘freedom fighters’ that both the Anelehite and the Nocabian factions at Clobberinopolis have favoured for years would become plain criminals as far as Aneleh is concerned. Or perhaps they’d become fancy ‘criminals against peace.’ Either way, the Nocabians cannot reasonably be expected to turn instantly on the same dime.”
Dr. Morris said he would have been amazed if there had not been an armed ideorevolt under the circumstances.
Meanwhile the insurgency was less than forty-eight minutes old before apparent signs of dissidence were noted in the rebel ranks. A number of the “shameful sell-out” wall posters at Clobberinopolis have been systematically defaced by addition of the words “But Turtle Bay does not HAVE any forces.”
Meanwhile, Boyz with Tanks are having fun.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6fb_1215037961
It was the first day of the Eid al-Adha holiday in 2004. I opened my eyes and found an American soldier standing near the foot of my bed and directing his weapon at my head. I took my blanket off speedily, but gently. I thought at the time that any confused movement would cost me my life.
My brother Murtada was standing behind the soldier. He came to me, put his arm around me and said: “Don’t worry. Nothing happened. Just wake up and leave your bed gently.” I could not speak. I was scared and felt shy because I was wearing my pajamas. I was looking deeply into my brother’s eyes. I think he understood. He smiled and asked me to wrap the blanket around my body. I left my bed and left my room. I found my mom and my sisters standing in our foyer and my dad and my brother were standing in the hall. More than 10 soldiers were spread out inside our house.
http://baghdadbureau.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/waking-up-with-soldiers/
This is what your war war in Iraq Helena