Clowns & Jokers

Stuck in the middle.... Left, right, centre. It's a mess out there.

Sunday, October 29, 2006

1970's cartoon "Its a gnat, its a fly, its U.N- MAN!!"

In Le Figaro, France's right wing broadsheet, there is an article which, in the english at least, reads as a 'modest' argument against anti americanism. Its a start! It examines what it views as an era of potential US impotence (which worries me too) and actually warns it 'is not to be welcomed'....with what i view as typical but somewhat 'softened' French arrogance:

"France cannot welcome the destruction of the United States' deterrent power. The United States is a difficult, sometimes even arrogant, ally, but it is an ally, and the only one that we have in order to grant credibility to the resolutions that we jointly adopt within the UN Security Council"


Well precisely. First up. They are an ally. This over fixation with the US as a deterrent power is what people like myself try to challenge - it has become a negative, unhealthy, unbalanced fixation that only centres around Iraq and Bush. This article certainly doesnt labour over the 'was it right to go to war' argument, but it does look at Iraq and the US being 'unsuccessfully' bogged down in it as a danger. I say 'unsuccessfully' because though i support the current aims in Iraq and view them as fundamentally correct, they have been so lost in a determination on the part of some here to undermine the aims ostensibly to undermine Bush, that they have contributed to the failure, in my opinion.

The article argues that

1. "In the absence of a real permanent UN force, the United States is the only permanent Security Council member that has a credible modern army, capable of being dispatched quickly to any part of the world. The problem is that this force no longer really inspires fear"

2. "By launching the invasion and occupation of Iraq on 20 March 2003, the United States unnecessarily abandoned a deterrence posture, despite the fact that it had worked well. Its failure to seek and obtain the UN Security Council's approval further exacerbates the situation"

3.
"The US defeat in Iraq has paradoxically made the mullahs' Teheran safe: They have realized that Congress will not allow George W. Bush to attack Iran, under the present circumstances. The US opposition within the Security Council to Iran's nuclear programme no longer carries much weight, because we know that it will not be followed up by any use of military force"

4. "Provoking the tripling of oil prices, the United States has granted [Iranian] President [Mahmud] Ahmadinezhad's regime the financial leeway that it dreamed of in order to pursue militarily its hegemonic regional ambitions..(Hezbollah)"

Interesting points. But i'd argue all the more reason to support and succeed in Iraq, to disband the UN, to disarm Hezbollah.... All the more reason to root out anti americanism, conflating hardened attitudes towards Bush and a dislike for the war producing this childish stream of hatred and spitefulness that manifests with monotonous regularity - it all works against us the whole time. OK you didn't support the war. Get over it.

And here's why (as the Figaro piece concludes)

"Since the 21st century promises to be a century of dangerous religious, ethnic, political and economic rivalries, the world needs a global policeman. Until the United Nations has, as its Charter requires, established a military force of its own, the need for such a policeman will continue to make itself felt. And like it or not, this policeman is a US one"


Forget the UN, France..forget it. Therein lies the French requirement to assume some responsibility in this mess - they, like others, still believe in this corrupt organisations ability to do anything. In recognising that the world does indeed need a Team America, its also time to recognise how inept and corrupt an organisation the UN is and see America for the force for good it still is. A timely introduction to
Nick Cohens piece in the Guardian:

How the UN lets genocidal states get away with murder.

"Annan will be gone soon, but unless his successor can tackle the moral corruption of a potentially noble institution, then the UN should be honest with itself and world opinion and take Chemical Ali's words as its motto. 'Who is going to say anything? The international community? Fuck them!'" .

*THAT* is how corrupt and murderous world players view the UN. Powerless. (Talk of impotence!). For any mistakes it makes the US needs to be seen as a strong armed policeman - it will only work if the policeman is seen to act precisely as that deterrant power - and with full western support, it actually needn't be so isolated. The US just needs to be more even handed.




5 Comments:

At Monday, 30 October, 2006, Blogger Wolfie said...

Yep, I can agree with all of that.

I'm quite concerned that Iraq has become an effective bear-trap for the American military. Knew it would from the start (but that's not gloating but sadness).

Right now simply pulling-out still looks like the least-bad option of a whole list of really bad ones though.

 
At Monday, 30 October, 2006, Anonymous alison said...

Im not sure i agree with any of them but the main thrust of the argument i do agree with. When you say you agree with the points does that include 1. In which case how do you view this as having happened (genuine interest...im not sure i see what they are angling at there). Think i may cross post this a ATW later also.

 
At Monday, 30 October, 2006, Blogger Wolfie said...

1. "In the absence of a real permanent UN force, the United States is the only permanent Security Council member that has a credible modern army, capable of being dispatched quickly to any part of the world. The problem is that this force no longer really inspires fear"

I'm presuming you disagree with the last sentence, am I right?

Well the dangerous prescient that has been set in Afghanistan and Iraq is that its been a showcase for 4G warfare. Its effectiveness in bogging-down a super-power in spite of being considerably less well armed has provided intel and inspiration to countries and groups who may foster plans to threaten or thwart American plans in the future.

An excellent example of this (by that I mean clearer) was Lebanon. Hezbollah demonstrated how to defeat, or at least contain a modern military campaign with overwhelming superior firepower. This has given them a massive popularity boost to them and other nations such as Iran have been taking notes I'm sure. Olmert should be run-out of Israel for exposing his fellow Israelis in such an utterly stupid tactical blunder; doomed from word go.

 
At Wednesday, 01 November, 2006, Anonymous alison said...

I dont think Hezbollah did either. The Israelis stated aim was to reach south of the Litani river and they achieved this. The mistake was allowing the UN to intervene and not set up clear terms for disarming them. We allowed Hizbollah to claim a victory. Captured Hizbollah soldiers said they had not anticipated the strength of israeli forces overall, doesnt strike me as the talk of a stronger army. If anything i think the war showed just how much those who opposed it succeeded in bolstering Hezbollah via adverse propaganda. In the same way I feel that the Iraq war is being lost through propaganda and we are our own worst enemies. The article makes some rationale points overall but I dont think these are the only reasons.

 
At Thursday, 02 November, 2006, Blogger Wolfie said...

No, certainly not the only reasons but I do think you are giving the propaganda war over here during this conflict more credit than its due.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home