tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post466507469879826112..comments2024-03-27T03:19:11.216-04:00Comments on Assistant Village Idiot: Part IV - The Long, Boring PartAssistant Village Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-64819825500607468172016-02-03T13:34:12.616-05:002016-02-03T13:34:12.616-05:00Blame President HW Bush for the weight given to UN...<a href="http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2013/03/10-year-anniversary-start-Operation-Iraqi-Freedom-thoughts.html#hwbush" rel="nofollow">Blame</a> President HW Bush for the weight given to UN imprimatur despite the riven dysfunction of the UN on Iraq:<br />"<i>President HW Bush suspended the Gulf War understanding the Saddam problem was not resolved because Saddam's regime remained intact. As such, immediately subsequent to the Gulf War, starting ipso facto with the comprehensive character of the ceasefire itself, President HW Bush was committed to fundamentally changing the "Government of Iraq" one way or another. <br />.President HW Bush's alternative to Iraqi regime change with Desert Storm was the ceasefire mandated by UNSCRs 687 and 688, which depended on a complex set of assumptions about, one, post-Cold War UN-based international enforcement that were at best optimistic theories and, two, Saddam's submission induced by Desert Storm that were immediately suspect and soon refuted by Saddam's noncompliance. By the time HW Bush left office, it was clear that Saddam would not comply volitionally with the terms of ceasefire and the outcome would either be Iraqi regime change or dropping the ceasefire mandates with a noncompliant Saddam.</i>" <br /><br />Be that as it may, the question of UN authorization is a necessary piece of the discussion because the basic legal character of the American role in the Iraq intervention was established in 1990-1991 as the enforcement of Iraq's compliance with the UNSCR 660-series mandates under US law, including (and especially) the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire. As such, the casus belli for OIF was Iraq's material breach of the UNSCR 660-series mandates, including (and especially) the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire. See the <a href="http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html#wasOIFlegal" rel="nofollow">answer</a> to "Was Operation Iraqi Freedom legal?".<br /><br />To be clear, the US did not surrender sovereign authority to enforce US foreign policy to the UN. However, in the case of Iraq, US foreign policy <i>was</i> the enforcement of Iraq's compliance with the UN resolutions, which necessarily included the question of UN authorization.<br /><br />"Just war" justification looks at substantive grounds, not bureaucratic procedure. Yet the "just war" debate over OIF is complicated by that the UN disagreement was not over substantive grounds. On the substantive issue, at the decision point for OIF, according to the "governing standard of Iraqi compliance" (UNSCR 1441) established by the UNSCR 660-series mandates, Iraq was evidentially guilty of material breach across the board of the Gulf War ceasefire. Rather, the UN disagreement was over the procedural issue of UN authorization - ie, whether the Security Council or UNSC members held the ultimate authority to enforce UN mandates upon the UNMOVIC confirmation of Iraq's breach of ceasefire. <br /><br />The UN disagreement over the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement preceded the Bush administration. Presidents HW Bush and Clinton and Congress held that the Gulf War authorization authorized enforcement of the Gulf War ceasefire. The UK agreed. Saddam's advocates on the Security Council, Russia, China, and France, disagreed.<br /><br />Does a bureaucratic procedural disagreement supersede the substantive grounds for "just war"?elceehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13774506000361028739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-61949577306013719202007-12-27T08:41:00.000-05:002007-12-27T08:41:00.000-05:00The consequence of that refining the question is t...<I>The consequence of that refining the question is that we are not ever likely to see those conditions met in the modern world. Our conflicts are increasingly with non-state actors surreptitiously supported by states. Twisted governments will simply maintain distance and deniability while funding and supplying our enemies. The type of warfare we automatically picture – the land invasion of bordering states or naval battles to secure access to an area – is already mostly a thing of the past, and will be increasingly rarer. Odd that those who are readiest to refuse this deniability to America and see the CIA behind every conflict abroad are the quickest to grant deniability to regimes which actively support Islamic terrorism.</I><BR/><BR/>This is the most troubling aspect to me. It relies so much on what countries <I>might</I> be doing and the associations they <I>might</I> have that it lends itself to looking behind every bush for a terrorist. We constantly make choices based on supposed "intelligence", while ignoring more obvious known facts. We openly do business with human-rights violators and criminals without any sanctions or ramifications from our nation, yet then start loking around for hidden enemies, most of whom are somehow related to our unhidden allies in the mideast.<BR/><BR/>It seems backwards to me. <BR/><BR/>Why not deal with the problems we know about before going after the ones we think we know about? Why sell weapons to Saudi Arabia when they are slippery and hard to pin down and oppressive to their own people? <BR/><BR/>If we found a link from Saudi Arabia to Osama, what would the US do? Isn't it likely that there might be one? But...we sit on our hands in that case.<BR/><BR/>It's the eqivocating that makes the Iraq war, and basing it on 9-11, frustrating to large numbers of people.<BR/><BR/>What is the solution? <BR/><BR/>In my mind trying to seperate from that area as much as possible is our only option. Developing alternative energy, opening up new areas for drilling, conserving energy....all ways to become less dependent on the mideast and the power they hold over us through their oil. We can only make "just" decisions when we are not clouded with conflict of interest and dependence on oil from that area.<BR/><BR/>Of course, that is the complete opposite of the idea of the UN, and hearkens back to developing a more nationalistice approach to foreign policy.terrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12399706958844399216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-43407578287893839892007-12-25T23:49:00.000-05:002007-12-25T23:49:00.000-05:00Interestingly enough, in June (the twenty fith to ...Interestingly enough, in June (the twenty fith to be exact) 1950 South Korea was invaded by North Korea. Korea had been partitioned by the United Nations in 1948 following the takeover of the majority of China by the communists and the same battle between communists and non-communists in Korea. The NK considers the resulting Korean War to be the "Fatherland Liberation War." <BR/><BR/>Because the North Koreans obviously were in a war of conquest (liberation is their catchword) the defensive war fought by South Korea and the US 8th Army was obviously a "Just War" by all the precepts of the so called Just war. <BR/><BR/>In this instance, the United Nations can be said to have fought a "just war" because on June 27th the UN Security Council gave unanimous approval of UNSC Resolution 82. Now, the Soviet Union was part of the permanent body of the UN so why was the approval unanimous with only tiny temporary SC member Yugoslavia abstaining? Because the Soviet Union was boycotting the SC. They wanted Communist China to have the permanent seat on the SC that was held by Nationalist Taiwan China. <BR/><BR/>Just war because only the most tyranical government on the face of the earth boycotted the very meeting in which they could have prevented UN participation and likely ensured a North Korean victory in the short term. <BR/><BR/>The UN then, by its very history is seen as an impediment to preventing war and likely causes much of the "unjust" wars seen today. Sad isn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com