A UN solution in Iraq Mr Bush?
db: UN.org reports that the world body's top envoy to Iraq has met with the Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani as well as Shi'ite Muslim cleric Moqtada al- Sadr. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's Special Representative, Ashraf Qazi briefed the Grand Ayatollah al Sistani on the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), including the work of the electoral team, the office of constitutional support and UNAMI's efforts to facilitate dialogue among all parties in Iraq.
The Grand Ayatollah thanked Mr. Qazi and encouraged the UN to continue to play an active role in facilitating dialogue. The two leaders also discussed the ongoing constitution-making process, and modalities for the December elections.
The Shi'ite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr acknowledged that the UN had an important role to play in Iraq, and asked Mr. Qazi to continue his efforts to promote dialogue and understanding.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan's Special Representative, Ashraf Qazi, conveyed his sincere condolences for the recent loss of the Grand Ayatollah's aide, Sheikh Hashim Attiyah al- Fadhli, and for other killings in recent months and weeks.
Does the US even want a solution to bo found? Given a choice between a raging insurgency - where hapless Iraqi security forces and the civilian poulation take most of the punishment - and a solution brokered by the UN that would agree a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops, I would guess that the US would prefer that the entanglement in Iraq was sustained for a further period of years (maybe twelve).
If you try to look at the situation from Bush's perspective (that involves oversimplifying it) you might think that a relative peace in Iraq brought through negotiation and the withdrawal of coalition troops would be a bad thing because a. We fight them there so we don't have to fight them at home (sic) . And if we find a peace in Iraq right now it means we wont have had enough time to liquidate the terrorists. This logic is of course flawed because every day the US is in Iraq an extra 100 terrorists are born (that number is a wild guess, but the logic stands) b. If we leave Iraq now we will be sending the wrong signal to the terrorists. If Bush continues to make his decisions based on what bin Laden might be thinking we are never going to make any progress. c. These guys we are talking to have been blowing up US troops. Wake up - forget the War of Terror for a moment - the war in Iraq is the same war that has been raging since the coalition invaded, notwithstanding Bush's set piece onboard the deck of USS Abraham Lincoln declaring an end to major hostilities. Once you understand that it becomes a nonsense to exclude the 'killers' from the table. You could make a better case for excluding the US d. The US needs permanent bases in Iraq to assist in the War of terror True. Withdrawing from Iraq must also bring a rethink of this failed strategy - with this war Bush as brought to the world more terrorism and more terrorists e. bin Laden will see this as a victory. See b. above. Remember - leave Iraq and we have the resources to actually capture bin Laden - rather than leaving it to the untrustworthy 'allies' the US has in the area. f. It will be bad for the corporates. Yes, and as part of a negotiated settlement the corporates must be made to account for every penny they have robbed from Iraq and from the US taxpayer. g. Flip-flopping on The War of Terror will make me look weak. A 'statesman' would figure out a way to look good g. The UK is running scared. Handing over to the UN is not running, but facing realities. Anyone who thinks that withdrawing from Iraq will bring with it peace on earth is mistaken. The UK will not in a moment become 'safe' - anyway in the UK that condition is usually just a lull between old and new threats.
The list could go on. I question whether Bush wants peace in Iraq enough.
The Grand Ayatollah thanked Mr. Qazi and encouraged the UN to continue to play an active role in facilitating dialogue. The two leaders also discussed the ongoing constitution-making process, and modalities for the December elections.
The Shi'ite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr acknowledged that the UN had an important role to play in Iraq, and asked Mr. Qazi to continue his efforts to promote dialogue and understanding.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan's Special Representative, Ashraf Qazi, conveyed his sincere condolences for the recent loss of the Grand Ayatollah's aide, Sheikh Hashim Attiyah al- Fadhli, and for other killings in recent months and weeks.
Who wants a settlement?
As the iron-fist of US occupation yet again finds it necessary to strike down hard upon the heads of the people of Fallujah you have to ask yourself - is a solution to the Iraq quagmire ever going to be found unless the UN adopts a genuine lead role in attempting to bring together all reasonable parties at the negotiating table? Resulting in an agreed timetable for the withdrawal of US forces and their replacement with a universally (more or less) accepted UN force.Does the US even want a solution to bo found? Given a choice between a raging insurgency - where hapless Iraqi security forces and the civilian poulation take most of the punishment - and a solution brokered by the UN that would agree a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops, I would guess that the US would prefer that the entanglement in Iraq was sustained for a further period of years (maybe twelve).
If you try to look at the situation from Bush's perspective (that involves oversimplifying it) you might think that a relative peace in Iraq brought through negotiation and the withdrawal of coalition troops would be a bad thing because a. We fight them there so we don't have to fight them at home (sic) . And if we find a peace in Iraq right now it means we wont have had enough time to liquidate the terrorists. This logic is of course flawed because every day the US is in Iraq an extra 100 terrorists are born (that number is a wild guess, but the logic stands) b. If we leave Iraq now we will be sending the wrong signal to the terrorists. If Bush continues to make his decisions based on what bin Laden might be thinking we are never going to make any progress. c. These guys we are talking to have been blowing up US troops. Wake up - forget the War of Terror for a moment - the war in Iraq is the same war that has been raging since the coalition invaded, notwithstanding Bush's set piece onboard the deck of USS Abraham Lincoln declaring an end to major hostilities. Once you understand that it becomes a nonsense to exclude the 'killers' from the table. You could make a better case for excluding the US d. The US needs permanent bases in Iraq to assist in the War of terror True. Withdrawing from Iraq must also bring a rethink of this failed strategy - with this war Bush as brought to the world more terrorism and more terrorists e. bin Laden will see this as a victory. See b. above. Remember - leave Iraq and we have the resources to actually capture bin Laden - rather than leaving it to the untrustworthy 'allies' the US has in the area. f. It will be bad for the corporates. Yes, and as part of a negotiated settlement the corporates must be made to account for every penny they have robbed from Iraq and from the US taxpayer. g. Flip-flopping on The War of Terror will make me look weak. A 'statesman' would figure out a way to look good g. The UK is running scared. Handing over to the UN is not running, but facing realities. Anyone who thinks that withdrawing from Iraq will bring with it peace on earth is mistaken. The UK will not in a moment become 'safe' - anyway in the UK that condition is usually just a lull between old and new threats.
The list could go on. I question whether Bush wants peace in Iraq enough.
posted by exoplanet at 1:00 PM
<< Home