Dan Gomez: Fixing Iraq with or without the U.N.

Last Tuesday, President Bush went before the United Nations in an appeal for aid in the reconstruction of Iraq. Even before his speech, it was clear that France would once again do everything it could to frustrate American interests, no matter what that might mean for Iraqi freedom.

In return for its agreement to help in the reconstruction of Iraq, France was demanding a greater U.N. role in the administration of Iraq, along with the imposition of democracy in Iraq within a matter of weeks.

But this time, it seems as though France is far more willing to negotiate and has already moderated those demands. In addition, France's former partner in obstruction, Germany, has begun to side with the Bush administration and is willing to help in training Iraqi security and police forces.

But even if the Bush administration is able to convince the U.N., they will have made a grave error if they allow any concessions to French elements.

As far as the wisdom of granting the U.N. any power in Iraq, I believe it was the great comedian Larry Miller who said, "The U.N. couldn't break up a cookie fight in a Brownie meeting." Not only that, but they would probably manage to get Americans killed in the process.

To be fair, the U.N. has had some success (the Korean War comes to mind). But overall, their track record on nation building and peacemaking is far from spotless. You only have to look at Sierra Leone, Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia to see that maybe the U.N. isn't the best choice for rebuilding Iraq.

Of course, there may be some of you who doubt our own record on nation building. But at least with the United States in control, the American people are able to make sure that the Iraqis secure their freedom. We can make sure that our elected officials finish the job in Iraq that is so vital to our national security.

The U.N., on the other hand, poisoned by anti-Americanism and cursed with the most bloated, complicated bureaucracy known to man, has made comical leadership choices in the past. Libya chairing the Commission on Human Rights? Pre-liberation Iraq chairing the U.N. Disarmament Conference? (Iran was the co-chair.) I don't know about you, but I don't particularly want Syria and Saudi Arabia having any say in the reconstruction of Iraq.

The French are also demanding that the Americans impose democracy in Iraq within a few weeks. But the transition to a democracy in Iraq must not be rushed. The historical examples of Germany and Japan after World War II have shown that patient, gradual transition produces strong democracies capable of self-government.

In both countries, we didn't take the easy way out by withdrawing our forces at the first opportunity. In addition to wanting to block Soviet advances, we knew that if we withdrew too early from those countries, they could easily fall back into fascism.

What Americans must understand is that we went into Iraq to enact "regime change," and so we must do exactly that. If we allow Iraq to fall back to terror and Baathism, we will lose all gains that we have made in the war on terror. Fascism, Baathism, terrorism and Communism are all antithetical to democracy, and so those elements must be subdued before any true democracy can take hold in Iraq.

But the political realities made it difficult for the president to avoid going to the U.N. The sobering reality is that America alone doesn't have the troops to handle Iraqi reconstruction as it stands right now, even if we wanted to. Short-sighted defense budget cuts over the past 15 years have left our army with far fewer ground troops than before. Furthermore, many of our troops are scattered throughout the globe, many in areas that have no immediate strategic significance for the U.S. (Bill "The troops will be out of Bosnia by Christmas" Clinton, I would point in your direction, but I'm afraid I'd get herpes).

Even the motivations behind the U.N. appeal are doubtful, though understandable for a politician. Iraqi reconstruction needs more money, more troops and more time, none of which are politically palatable to politicians. This does not just apply to the Republicans, but also to the Democrats. Numerous Democratic presidential contenders have called on President Bush to "bring our boys home" and to "internationalize the problem."

Although it is virtually political suicide, the only real solution for President Bush is to withdraw the U.N. resolution requesting aid, to call up more reserves, including the National Guard if necessary, and to make sure that America remains in control of Iraq's future until Iraq can control it for itself. The real tragedy in going to the U.N. is not only political embarrassment, but risking many of the gains that our troops have fought hard to secure.

Dan Gomez is a junior History major from Wayne, Pa. and chairman of the Penn College Republicans.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.