I am still not hearing any valid reasons why we are refusing to give the U.N. control in Iraq. Most countries like India are refusing to send troops thus far only because they can not allow their own troops to be taking orders from American generals. If the goal was to free Iraq - not exploit it afterwards - why not let the U.N. handle it as it has in Bosnia and elsewhere? Am I missing something? Are we trying to antagonize the Middle East on purpose? Are we begging for more large scale terrorist attacks back here at home? This from the Associated Press:
The United Nations should play a larger role in helping form a new Iraqi government that would eventually usher out U.S.-led occupying forces, a senior Shiite Muslim cleric said in this holy city Friday....Hakim said the United Nations should join the current dialogue between occupation forces and Iraqi religious, political and civilian groups.
''It is very important for the United Nations and the Security Council to be a third part in this dialogue over the future of Iraq, the fate of Iraq, ending occupation ... and forming an Iraqi government,'' Hakim said.
''The role of the United Nations means that the Iraqi cause will not be in the hands of occupation forces but it will become an international cause under the supervision of the international community,'' he added....
The United States failed to win the backing of the U.N. Security Council before it invaded Iraq on March 20. Since major fighting ended, the United States has been reluctant to allow the United Nations to play a large role in rebuilding the country.
And this from the Inter Press Service News Agency:
So far doomsday scenarios have not materialized. In fact, it can be argued that signs are pointing to the opposite. The Shiites have not turned out to be the main problem. At least, not yet.Almost all the attacks against U.S. forces have occurred in areas controlled by Sunni Muslims, where Saddam and his cronies had influence. There are signs also that some Sunni Muslims might be receiving financial and material help from Saudi Arabia's radical Wahhabi Muslims.
”We realize there is some Saudi activity and involvement and we've basically told them cut it out,” a senior U.S. official in Baghdad said on condition of anonymity.
Shiite leaders, far from being a monolithic group, have said they want to give the coalition a chance to deliver on its promises, and that confrontation with the U.S. and British armies is not in the cards.
”We took a position some time ago that we will not pursue the path of armed confrontation with the coalition forces, and have been trying to push these forces, which are occupying forces, from Iraq through peaceful means and constructive dialogue,” says Abdel Aziz Hakim, the younger brother of Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).
Hasn't Bush heard that story of King Solomon, which shows that a mother who truly cares about her child would be willing to give him up in order to save him?
Is it me, or are there some striking similarities to the current situation in Iraq?