Kerry, Kerry, Quite Contrary

Every time I hear John Kerry say something, I wonder if he is living in the same world as I am. It seems to me that he is experiencing a completely different reality, one where the United Nations and NATO aren't either corrupt or completely ineffective (or both). In John Kerry's world, if the United States would just turn control of Iraq over to the UN or NATO, all of the world's problems with violence and terrorism would go away.

Why do I say this? Well, let's review what John Kerry had to say in his radio address yesterday (April 17, 2004):

The use of force must be combined with a diplomatic strategy that will work. United Nations representatives have put forward a fair proposal for an interim government. It will allow Iraqis from all factions to participate. It's a good starting point, but it leaves many hard questions unanswered.

That is why, for the long term, our third step we must remove the "Made in America" label from the Iraqi occupation.

We can do that by creating an international mission authorized by the United Nations. That mission should become the main civilian partner in helping the Iraqi people hold elections, restore government services and rebuild their economy. This would make it possible to attract needed financial help from other nations, and show that Iraqi extremists are opposing not just the United States, but also the will of the nations of the world. Removing that "Made in America" label can send a message to Iraqi military and police that its time to do their jobs not because America is telling them to, but because the world stands ready to help them secure a stable Iraq.

Fourth, we should transform the military force in Iraq into a NATO security force under the leadership of an American commander. By sharing responsibilities with our friends and allies, we can get others to share the burdens and the risks. Given the dangers in Iraq it won't be easy to get our friends and allies to send in new troops, but I am confident that we can do that with real leadership and a commitment to share authority as well as responsibility. To achieve this we need a major diplomatic effort including a high level mission to consult with our NATO partners.

It appears that John Kerry thinks "Made in America" is a bad thing. He denigrates all of those people that work hard to produce quality products that are, in fact, "Made in America." I work for a subsidiary of Boeing. Is he saying that all of the military and commercial products that Boeing makes are inferior to those made elsewhere? I think the facts say otherwise.

That isn't really my point, though. My point is this: John Kerry seems to think that NATO and the United Nations can do a better job of administering and securing Iraq than the United States can (of course, this is despite the fact that a large number of countries are already supporting the U.S. in Iraq, so how it will be different isn't at all clear). Well, let's review how well NATO and the United Nations have been doing in administering and securing other countries lately:

From the Voice of America  (thanks to Mudville Gazette via Instapundit): "United Nations officials in Kosovo expressed shock over an unprecedented shoot-out between members of the U.N. police force in Kosovo, which killed two Americans and a Jordanian and injured at least 11 others. The incident took place in the northern town of Kosovska Mitrovica." Nice. The U.N. police are shooting each other. You'll never guess who opened fire on whom. What? You say you'd bet that the Jordanian officer fired on the Americans first. But aren't Americans blood-thirsty primitives? Well, you're right; the Jordanians fired first on the American female police officers - as if it wasn't obvious to begin with.

The words of the Deputy Secretary-General, Louise Fréchette, of the United Nations, on the genocide in Rwanda: "Ten years ago, the international community failed Rwanda.  None of us - neither the Security Council, nor the UN Secretariat, nor governments in general, nor the international media - paid enough attention to the gathering signs of disaster.  And once the genocide was under way, none of us did enough to stop it, even when televised images of slaughter were visible all around the world." So, even the UN itself admits that it was completely useless and incompetent in securing Rwanda. Isn't it nice how she wants to spread the blame around, when it's the United Nation's responsibility to deal with these things? That's why the UN exists!

How about our staunch NATO allies? Well, there's this (from MSNBC, just in case you all thought I was checking only right-wing sources):

The prime minister ordered Spanish troops pulled out of Iraq as soon as possible Sunday, fulfilling a campaign pledge to a nation still recovering from terrorist bombings that al-Qaida militants said were reprisal for Spain’s support of the war.

Spain's new prime minister had said that the only way Spanish troops would remain in Iraq was if the United Nations took control, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen soon enough for him:

"With the information we have, and which we have gathered over the past few weeks, it is not foreseeable that the United Nations will adopt a resolution that satisfies Spain’s terms", Zapatero said.

Of course, the United Nations is the international arbiter of morality, honesty, and tolerance, right? They've even gone so far as to admonish Canada to outlaw spanking of children. That's how upright the United Nations is, I'm sure everyone would agree. Well, except for this small matter of corruption and kickbacks in the Oil-for-Food program in Iraq. Kofi Annan says it will be taken "very seriously." Yes, I'm sure - probably about as seriously as they took the genocide in Rwanda. It doesn't help that there may (and I emphasize, may) be connections between Kofi Annan's son, Kojo Annan, and the Oil-for-Food program.

John Kerry is trying to differentiate his policies from President Bush's policies regarding Iraq. He thinks we should rely more on international help and cooperation. Well, we already tried to get international help, remember? Jacque Chirac said that France wouldn't help under any circumstances. Even now, Russia is trying to block a UN resolution supporting the investigation of corruption in the Oil-for-Food program.

So, how is it that Kerry thinks that the UN and NATO will be able to accomplish what the U.S. and our allies can't, especially given that the U.S. and our current allies would make up the vast majority of any security force in Iraq? Does he think that Iraqis would accept American soldiers with open arms, if only they had a UN mandate? What is his basis for assuming that Iraqi militants and radicals will accept UN-mandated forces any more than they accept the international forces that are already there? Given the United Nation's history of incompetence and corruption, why in the world does he think that having the United Nations administer Iraq is a good idea?

Kerry's ideas on Iraq are completely ridiculous, and Kerry must know it. He's just trying to gain campaign points by cynically spinning the old "unilateral" argument and assuming that most Americans are stupid and/or uninformed and won't think it through. He's playing to most American's desire that our country be liked in the international community, simply as a campaign strategy. He said that his basic policies will be the same as George Bush's, so all of his talk is just bluster and politicking. Why vote for someone so full of "nuance" that he can't spell out a coherent, sensible, realistic, approach to the most fundamental problem of our times?

Permanent link