Justin Raphael: U.N. lacks legitimacy to help in Iraq

Within weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the U.N." Such is the promise of John Kerry, Democratic candidate for president. This enlightened multilateralism, what Kerry and scions call "nuanced" foreign policy, has a clear element of elitist euphemism: A Kerry presidency, it seems, would just be smarter. The irony is that there is nothing smart about turning over Iraq to the United Nations.

That is not to say that everything is right about the war in Iraq. The administration's focus on WMD was an error not only forensic but strategic. It obscured the intractable obstacles to democracy among radical Shiites and other terrorist elements.

What is more, the Rumsfeld Doctrine that we could make war on the cheap, with fewer troops and dollars, has proved to be as incredible in bungling the peace as it was awing in swift victory. We were promised a new kind of Pentagon, but instructing the accounting department to transfer funds to the coffin sector is hardly efficiency. (And I have heard the toilet seats are still expensive.)

John Kerry could make these points. Doing so would not only be honest and credible, but might bolster his credentials, that is to say, shine his medals. But Kerry doesn't make them, or if he does, fails to do so clearly.

Maybe the problem is that, as George Orwell wrote, "Insincerity is the greatest enemy of language." John Kerry might truly believe that the United Nations can change things in Iraq, but such a faith seems merely a desperate attempt to solve the Hubert Humphrey dilemma: A pro-war candidate who needs the blessing of a largely anti-war party.

Kerry's promise to go to the U.N. doesn't seem credible, because the U.N. has lost its credibility. True, it does some admirable work through UNICEF and the World Health Organization. But though his voice is being heard like a whisper in a helicopter, William Safire has been following a kickback scandal at the U.N.'s oil-for-food program.

It seems that, far from contributing to our security or Iraqi freedom, the U.N. profited at the expense of both. Undersecretary Gen. Benon Sevan, a Cypriot, was auctioning the rights to sell Iraqi oil at the rate of a 10 percent kickback and political support for Saddam. Millions went to companies in Russia, France and elsewhere; some even went to banks linked to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. We hear a lot about Halliburton, but at least our supposed scandals free Iraqis instead of perpetuating their tortuous status quo.

The comedy of errors goes on, some of it not so comic. Cuba, Saudi Arabia, China, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe all sit on the Commission on Human Rights, where an obviously controversial resolution condemning abuses by the Castro regime recently passed by, yes, one vote. How countries where reading certain books is a crime can help us spread democracy is beyond me.

And just last week in Kosovo, a Jordanian peacekeeper killed two of his American colleagues, casting doubt on whether such a mission in Iraq could succeed.

All of this is window dressing to the fact that al Qaeda-linked militants decided to welcome the U.N. to Baghdad by setting off a car bomb at its headquarters. Radical Islam does not respect international law -- it respects no law. Which leads to what we've been missing all along: While the U.N. might be adept at settling internal conflict, this is one we cannot afford to mediate.

Political correctness to the contrary, terrorism is the last resort of radical Islam in its Arab civil war with civilization; bin Laden spouts as much venom at Arab secularists as he does at American infidels. The latter have been desperately drawn into the conflict for dramatic effect to garner anti-imperialist sympathy for the battle against modernity.

We did not elect to be so victimized by the death throes of troglodytes, but neither should we choose to keep them alive with a U.N. mission. Those terrorists who seek refuge in ancient mosques claim the banner of Islamic tradition, but they forget that their faith was once at the zenith of the civilization they aim to destroy. Such thugs will not negotiate with or be civilized by the U.N. or anyone else; for the sake of Iraqi freedom, American security and Islamic civilization, they can only be destroyed.

Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote that, "in [liberal] fantasy, one can denounce a decision without accepting the consequences of the alternative." Internationalists will accordingly cling to the fantasy that the U.N. is both legitimate and effective on the grounds that, while not perfect, it is good in principle. Sounds kind of like the country that is in Iraq already.

Justin Raphael is a sophomore American history major from Westport, Conn. Uncommon Sense appears on Tuesdays.

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