Bush won in the UN…for what that’s worth

A Solid Vote That Buttresses ‘Made in USA’

This WaPo story is subtitled “Resolution on Iraq Not Expected to Attract Contributions of Troops and Aid From U.N. Members.”

So many people are grinding their teeth over the 15-0 Security Council vote in favor of our resolution. They’re the ones that whined that, in the absence of actual support, we should at least get international approval. So now, after getting that approval, they’re stuck whining that we’re not going to get more troops or money.

There’s no pleasing some people.

The 15 to 0 vote, bringing in not just France, Germany and Russia but also Syria, was no small feat. But analysts and diplomats said the impact of the resolution would be limited, and perhaps not worth its cost of exposing the deep-seated resentments in the world community over the U.S. handling of the Iraq war. Few believe the Security Council’s resolution will bring much in terms of pledges of troops or aid, even though the Bush administration originally sought the resolution for precisely that reason.

I feel that the actual point here is that we got a unanimous vote without giving up anything. That point doesn’t sit well with opponents of the US, so they pretend that the fact France won’t send troops (which would probably require US protection) matters.

Bush can have all the international support he wants in about ten minutes. Troops. Money. Foreign investors. You name it. In ten minutes, more French troops could be hitting the borders of Iraq than waved white hankies in 1940.

If we give up control.

We didn’t and we won’t. There have been a few adjustments in the overall plan, but the deal offered to the UN is essentially the same deal offered in January. After a summer rougher than most expected, we’re sticking to our guns. The UN didn’t. It’s the United Nations that gave up control.

Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, the Mexican ambassador, earlier this week told the Security Council he had deep reservations about the U.S. proposal, especially language saying that the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council “embodies the sovereignty of the State of Iraq,” sources said. But after declaring the resolution all but useless, he indicated he would vote for it anyway.

The resolution is “useless,” but he would vote for it anyway? This is the group that so many people think we need approval from?

Is this body legitimate in any meaningful way? Syria is on the current Security Council, for heaven’s sake. (Oops! Can I say “heaven”?) Syria is one of the world’s watchmen? The only way that Syria will help cut down on international terrorism is if the people it supports blow everything up, leaving nothing else left to attack. The current set-up is a joke. One nation=one vote only works when the voters are legitimate members. The criteria for membership in the club needs to be reviewed.

And remember, if we were following France’s timetable, Iraq would be turned over to the current Governing Council in a couple of weeks. Does that seem like a good idea?

Yes, this was pretty much a meaningless resolution. Just like the ones that were passed over the years and led to the invasion of Iraq. Just like the ones that solved the Korean crisis in the 1950’s. Just like the ones that defused tensions in Israel and the Balkans. Meaningless.