September 10, 2003
BUSH'S CALL FOR INTERNATIONAL HELP IS 'AN ADMISSION OF FAILURE'
** U.S.'s "sudden
conversion to multilateralism" shows its "unilateral strategy"
** Critics chide an
"arrogant" Bush for having no clear plan to solve the Iraq problem.
** Even war opponents
"have a duty" to help prevent Iraq from becoming a "failed
state," but they will demand the U.S. cede substantial authority to the
'Reality has made a serious appearance in Washington'-- Terming Iraq "a tougher, bloodier and
more costly challenge" than foreseen, analysts said it was "a clearly
pressured" Bush who appealed for broader international involvement in his
speech to the nation. While holding that
"the unremitting gloom" of some "does an injustice to the
constructive work already done," Britain's conservative Times added
that "realism about means and costs...is a first essential." An independent Indonesian daily described
Bush as "overwhelmed" by the problems of Iraq while a rightist French
paper judged that "Bush has no other choice but to ask for help through
the UN." An Egyptian writer crowed
that the average American must be "very embarrassed" that the U.S.
"now humbly asks" for help from the same UN it previously
Writers criticize 'brash' request to 'clean up after the U.S.
elephant'-- Papers in France, Germany,
Australia and Canada, among others, complained that the president's speech
lacked "conciliatory tones."
They judged it "indeed astounding to find the U.S. asking for
support" from allies that Bush earlier "humiliated." Considering the trouble the U.S. is facing in
Iraq, remarked Germany's center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine, "a
less demanding attitude would have been better." Critics also expressed disappointment that
the president "offered no clear outline of how he planned to deal"
with Iraq. "The U.S. cannot call on
other nations" for help "without fully disclosing its Iraq peace and
reconstruction plans," stated Japan's liberal Asahi. French papers noted Bush "has not made
clear what price he is ready to pay" for international support but
declared "if all the conditions are met, France will not be able to
The world 'must' help but the UN must be more than 'a fig leaf for
the U.S.'-- While one center-right
German paper contended there was "no reason and by no means a duty"
to put international resources into "a useless U.S. enterprise," most
papers agreed that "no one wants to see the Middle East sink into
chaos...or to witness a weakening of the U.S." Britain's independent Financial Times
editorialized that "opponents of the war...have a duty to help" lest
Iraq become a "failed state" and a breeding ground for
terrorists. Writers took the view that a
new UNSC resolution "is only possible if the U.S. brings itself" to
grant its partners "a voice in economic and military affairs." An Arab financial daily held that "the
French position is the right attitude" because there will be no security
in Iraq "without transferring authority...to the Iraqi people." A nationalist Russian paper advised President
Putin to "follow the example" of France and Germany in UNSC
negotiations and "bargain really hard."
EDITOR: Steven Wangsness
EDITOR'S NOTE: This
analysis is based on 66 reports from 30 countries, September 6-9, 2003. Editorial excerpts from each country are
listed from the most recent date.
BRITAIN: "Policy On
Iraq Must Change Course"
The independent Financial Times editorialized (9/9): "If there is to be any chance of
retrieving the failure of postwar Iraq--already dreadfully near--the
rose-tinted and information-deficient analysis should be rejected. It is now beyond reasonable doubt that the
present set-up cannot and will not work.
Some form of acknowledgment by the Bush administration that this is the
case is the indispensable starting point for a policy that might conceivably
work--around which the Iraqi people and America's friends might be able to
rally. The situation on the ground
should by now be plain to all.... To
call this a mess is to understate the matter.
Opponents of the war who foresaw it do, however, have a duty to help because
otherwise Iraq will become a failed state--an amalgam of Afghanistan, civil war
Lebanon and Somalia, with oil....
Failure in Iraq will incubate new terror networks that will threaten
everyone. Failure would also betray
Iraqis who suffered three catastrophic wars under Saddam Hussein's tyranny and
saw their one prosperous country reduced to penury by 13 years of
sanctions. As things stand, Washington
seems only to want cash and troops for what Mr. Bush called the 'central front'
in the 'war against terror'.... For Iraq
to have any hope of a decent future, the policy has to change."
"Price Of Peace: Bush
And Blair Set Out A Revised Iraqi Strategy"
The conservative Times took this view (9/9): "George W. Bush knows that his
re-election campaign may stand or fall by what happens in Iraq.... Iraq is proving a tougher, bloodier and more
costly challenge than some in his Administration had foreseen but Mr. Bush
remains determined to complete the task....
Without better security and an accelerated program of civil
reconstruction, frustration within Iraq will grow and anti-Western militants
will make headway. The problems are
significant, but the unremitting gloom that pervades the debate in London and
parts of Washington does an injustice to the constructive work already done in
Iraq.... Terrorism must be defeated and
Iraq must be set on a path to recovery.
But realism about means and costs in this region is a first essential."
Pierre Rousselin commented in right-of-center Le Figaro
(9/9): “Capitals around the world are
trying to figure out whether or not to help private Bush. President Bush is in a dangerous position on
both Middle Eastern fronts: in Iraq and in the Middle East. Regarding Iraq, President Bush has no other
choice but to ask for help through the UN....
In the Middle East, the Abbas resignation is putting Arafat back in the
saddle thus reducing President Bush’s strategy to smithereens. This all looks very much like a double
failure for the man who claimed he would remodel the region.... In order to bounce back, President Bush needs
to find new friends abroad.... What
counts now is that he is coming back to the UN.
For all those who fought in favor of its principles, this is a major
source of satisfaction. They need to
keep the U.S. from drifting once more.
But certainly not to oppose it....
Americans and Europeans share the same values in Iraq, in the Middle
East and in the fight against terrorism....
Talks are only just beginning.
President Bush said he is ready to ‘overcome past differences.’ But he has not made clear what price he is
ready to pay for the help he is asking.
Let’s encourage these talks and invite the U.S. President to reveal his
"The Impotence Of Victory"
Bruno Frappat remarked in Catholic La Croix (9/9): “America’s appeal is a surprise for all those
who do not have a short memory.... It is
indeed astounding to find the U.S. asking for support from those whose warnings
it disregarded.... There is something
almost immoral in this lack of remorse as the U.S. makes a gesture towards
multilateralism. As if it were possible
to forget America’s past unilateral contempt.... The logical initial response would be to
ignore the plea.... But there is another
response: let us make this sudden
conversion to multilateralism a basis for the future.”
"A Failure And A Plea"
Jean-Claude Kiefer contended in regional Les Dernieres
Nouvelles d’Alsace (9/9): “President
Bush’s speech is an admission of failure and a plea for help.... His call for help deserves a swift
answer. Saturday’s Security Council
meeting might reveal America’s real intentions for the UN and Iraq.... Placing Iraq under UN command would mean a
return to international law and to multilateralism. If America’s diplomatic reversal is
confirmed, France will be in the grips of a controversy. But if all the conditions are met, France
will not be able to refuse. To refuse to
help would be a mistake. It would also
mean missing the opportunity for a multipolar world and a chance to escape from
America’s hyperpower and domination.”
"Searching For A Solution"
Dominique Bromberger observed on government-run France Inter radio
(9/9): “France and the U.S. are once
again face to face. But contrary to last
year’s face-off, this is a search for a solution by two nations that do not see
eye to eye on the means while agreeing on the outcome.”
"The Answer To President Bush Is Silence"
Luc de Barochez held in right-of-center Le Figaro
(9/9): “As chaos develops in Iraq, there
are fewer and fewer candidates to help the U.S.
Total silence was the response to President Bush's plea to the
international community.... Except for
the British, all those who might be in position to help the U.S. are adopting a
cautious wait-and-see approach.”
"Bush, Annan And The World’s Extreme Disunity"
Right-of-center Les Echos editorialized (9/9): “The question before us is not about the
objectives: no one wants to see the Middle East sink into chaos...or to witness
a weakening of the U.S. The question
before us is about the means and about the role of the UN.... The unity of the international community is
essential now that America’s strategy in the Middle East is in
disarray.... The world today is very far
from the messianic vision America predicted for Iraq and the Middle East.”
"Searching For New Prestige"
Francoise Crouigneau wrote in right-of-center Les Echos
(9/9): “On the eve of this sad
anniversary, one can only say that terrorism is far from having been
eradicated; and the dream of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is fast
disappearing. President Bush must find a
way to regain his prestige in the eyes of international public opinion while
negotiating a delicate about-face with the UN and yesterday’s foes in order to
extricate himself from the Iraq quagmire.”
GERMANY: "Rhetoric Of
Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger said in a font-page editorial in
center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (9/9): "Despite a situation in Iraq that does
not match the optimistic forecasts from pre-war times, President Bush's request
for help did not have too many conciliatory tones. He was even considerably arrogant, even
though the polarizing dispute over the usefulness, the urgency, and legitimacy
of the war against Saddam's regime--and the methods of U.S. policy--has not
been forgotten. In addition, it is
obvious that Bush's Iraq policy has not turned into a radiating success
story. In this situation, a less
demanding attitude would have been better....
The reference is right that an Iraq that has embarked upon the path to
stability (or is being put on the tracks to this stability) will have an effect
on the entire region. That is why a
success is in the interest of many, including the Europeans, like the return to
a coordinated policy. But it is
mysterious how one can believe that America's diplomatic opponents from early
this year can be prompted to cooperate by rudely referring to their
'duties.' This is not a wise
"There Is No Way Back"
Washington correspondent Wolfgang Koydl filed the following
editorial for center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (9/9): "Reluctantly, the neo-radicals in
Washington have to admit that even a superpower like the United States has
limits, and that these limits are closer than they have originally assumed. But what is true for Bush also refers to the
United States, to its European allies, and to the Muslim-Arab countries. They have no choice but to continue their
current policy, be it very dangerous and be it full of setbacks. There is no alternative to fight the ideology
of terrorism at its breeding ground.
Today, the greatest threat of the free world comes from the death cult
of Islamic terror sects, and it is no coincidence that Bush spoke of rolling
back this danger. Rollback instead of
containment--this was already Ronald Reagan's recipe, which in the end led to
the collapse of communism.... The
[American] voter may well be willing to accept Bush's repugnant soup, but this
does not mean that they want to keep the cook."
"State Of The Union"
Centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (9/9) argued: "The discussion over an extended UN
mandate will not become easy for President Bush, but it would be useful if
pragmatism returned on either side of the Atlantic. The U.S. government must give up its allergy
to the United Nations and the Europeans should no longer treat the UN as a
sacred cow and ignore its deficiencies.
It is really in the interest of all to bring peace to Iraq. That is why pragmatic solutions, not
ideologies, are now necessary."
"Bush Speech On Iraq"
T. Schwarte commented on regional radio station Norddeutscher
Rundfunk Info radio of Hamburg (9/7):
"President Bush is in trouble, because the U.S. Middle East policy
these days is running the risk of failing, while the failure of his policy has
already begun in Iraq. Now he is calling
for assistance from the United Nations, France, Germany, and Russia. All of them could now react with malice, and
they could all say: We told you before. The fact that nobody has reacted this way,
because everybody knows what is at stake, gives reason for hope and shows that
some politicians--unlike George W. Bush--have the talent to say and do the
right thing at the right time."
Dieter Ostermann had this to say in an editorial in left-of-center
Frankfurter Rundschau (9/9):
"What George W. Bush presented at prime time in the Cabinet Room of
the White House...was probably something like a Texan 'mea culpa.' He did not mention weapons of mass
destruction, which were the official reason to go to war.... And he did not make any self-critical remark
why the anti-proliferation campaign, which he declared to be over months ago,
has now turned into a 'central front' in the anti-terror fight, and what went
wrong in post-war Iraq. The request for
help to the international community rather looked like a cheeky instruction to
throw the life belt to him."
"Logic Gets Short Shrift"
Right-of-center Saechsische Zeitung of Dresden observed
(9/9): "Most of the 87 billion
dollars, which the president has now demanded, do not go to peaceful projects
abroad but to the U.S. military and the intelligence services. Yes, Iraqis and Afghans need greater
security, but they need primarily more water, electricity, and more to
eat. A rebuilt infrastructure creates
greater confidence than heavily armed soldiers in the streets. And confidence in turn creates greater
security. But this logic got less than a
fair share in Bush's [speech]."
"A Useless Enterprise"
Center-right Wiesbadener Kurier noted (9/9): "There is no reason and by no means a
duty to put international funds and staff into a useless U.S. enterprise. And it is no question of pussyfooting or principles
that the United States first has to transfer the responsibility for Iraq's reconstruction
to the United Nations, but it is a question of political and practical chances
to succeed. Without a genuine UN mandate
and the clear passing of responsibilities to the Iraqis, there will be no
confidence-building in Iraq. How deep
must America still get involved in this quagmire before Bush makes a
ITALY: "Bush And The
Iraqi Bill, The Toughest Game"
Gianni Riotta’s commented in centrist, top-circulation Corriere
della Sera (9/9): “Bush has a
formidable task ahead: he must convince public opinion, less than 14 months
before the elections, that the war in Iraq was just, that it is now possible to
mend the fracture with the allies and to obtain a UN mandate, and that the
cost, 87 billion dollars, is worth paying.
Americans will vote on two issues--the war on terror and the
economy--and Bush must obtain their confidence on both.... The President has realized that the
unilateral strategy of his neo-conservative advisors won’t work. The United States has won the war alone, but
it cannot rebuild Iraq alone.... A
single issue will determine the outcome of the 2004 electoral campaign: dealing
with the terrorist threat. The Americans
are willing to pay a high cost in dollars and human lives of their soldiers,
without sinking the economy.”
"The American Lesson"
Paolo Guzzanti argued in pro-government, leading center-right
daily Il Giornale (9/9): “To
those who expected the announcement of a withdrawal, self-criticism, or a step
backward, President Bush replied by asking for additional 87 billion dollars
for Afghanistan and Iraq.... And he said
that this is a war, a real, long and difficult war, dirty and full of traps,
but also that his America, the unique America in the world, will fight it to
the bitter end and until victory over terrorism has been achieved.... Bush’s speech sounded like a challenge: the
United Nations went to Iraq with ‘compassion and generosity,’ and what did it
get back? A bomb truck that massacred
its officials.... You see, says Bush, it
is not a war against America, but against civilization.... Nobody is excluded from this war and those
who think they are have received their own dose of death and destruction just
like we do.”
RUSSIA: "The Black
Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta held (9/9): "How many 'sacrifices' will be made to
the war is unknown. But for Bush to ask
for another $90 billion (around four percent of the budget) for little Iraq,
with the budget deficit running at $401 billion as it is, is to admit the
economic bankruptcy of his foreign policy.
This when he has yet to tell how long the U.S. troops are going to stay
in Iraq and neighboring Kuwait and how many taxpayer dollars will be spent on
the second Gulf war. Iraq is becoming a
'black hole' to the United States, just as Chechnya is to Russia."
"Do As Germans, French Do"
Vasiliy Safronchuk advised in nationalist opposition Sovetskaya
Rossiya (9/9): "Putin would do
well to follow the example of Germany and France, which bargain really hard as
they try to sell concessions on the submitted draft resolution on Iraq."
"U.S. Can't Do This On Its Own"
Yevgeniy Bai and Melor Sturua remarked in reformist Izvestiya
(9/9): "Only recently U.S. leaders
said that while international support for their campaign in Iraq was important,
of course, America could manage on its own.
It has not. Even militarily, the
Americans, as follows from the Bush speech, need a third army division in
addition to the two (one under British command and the other under Polish
command) that are already there."
Foreign affairs writer Christoph Prantner observed in liberal
daily Der Standard (9/9): “In the
18 minutes of President Bush’s address to the nation, there was certainly no
lack of arrogance. However, in this
case, the gap between rhetoric and reality seems to be at least as wide as the
distance the President will have to cover until he finds real partners--not
only willing parties--who are prepared to make a substantial contribution to
the Iraq mission. France, Germany, and
even Russia, do not seem to be too enthusiastic about casting the UN in the
role of the fig leaf in Iraq. Experts
agree that a new Security Council Resolution is only possible if the U.S.
brings itself to grant their partners a voice in economic and military affairs. On the other hand, for the wooed countries,
there are too many geostrategic interests at stake for their resistance to last
long--and Bush, for all his problems with foreign policy, will probably have an
easier ride with them than he currently has at home. After all, it is easier to influence
prospective partners with their predictable interests in the Middle East, than
it is to get Congress to cough up the billions he asked for, or to tackle the
"More Of The Same"
Senior editor Hans Rauscher commented in liberal daily Der
Standard (9/9): “Bush, the warrior,
is not only thrusting his begging bowl in the face of the U.S. Congress, but
also in that of his allies--the ‘chocolate-producing countries,’ such as
France, Germany and Belgium, that were once sneered at by Rumsfeld. Oh yes, and more troops will also be
necessary. The problem is, there aren’t
any, as the American empire has no active combat troops to spare. More troops, more money, more of the
same. For the first time, this actually
sounds like Vietnam. Bosnia was no
Vietnam, Kosovo was no Vietnam, Afghanistan was and is no Vietnam. But Iraq....
More important than money and troops would be to fire Rumsfeld &
Co., who have (mis)led the country into this situation.”
"A Brash Plea"
Foreign affairs writer Stefan Galoppi wrote in mass-circulation
daily Kurier (9/9): “If you have
to ask for something, you should do it nicely--unfortunately, George W. Bush
ignored this truism in his televised speech....
It is indeed piquant when Bush chides the UN, which he deemed irrelevant
not long ago, and the obstinate Europeans to do their ‘duty’ in Iraq, and
fulfill their responsibilities in the country.
In other words: he is asking them to invest in the reconstruction process,
provide soldiers for a multinational troop under U.S. command, and, if
possible, not make any demands. More
money, more soldiers, more pressure on the allies to finally get them to do
what the White House wants--with this strategy, Bush is upping the stakes and
the risk before the election year of 2004.
In the long run, neither Congress, nor the U.S. voters will buy the
long-term commitment to Iraq, with its incalculable cost in human lives and
material. And on an international level,
pleas that sound like orders usually fall on deaf ears.”
"International Cooperation In Iraq"
Foreign editor Jean Vanempten wrote in financial daily De
Financieel-Economische Tijd (9/9):
"It may soon be clear how much international will there is to negotiate
and cooperate on the international level....
France, Russia, China and the United Kingdom will sit at the table with
the United States. It will soon be clear
whether there is still a desire to cooperate or not.... If there is no breakthrough in the Iraq
dossier, the UN will be weakened further.
In that case, the United States may claim that it is forced to continue
the struggle alone. For Bush, however,
such a scenario is not without risk....
On top of a rising budgetary deficit and growing unemployment, a
desperate and expensive war in Iraq will be a major obstacle to his
re-election. Bush must assess his rigid
international policy against...political self-interest. That consideration may make the international
consultations succeed after all."
CZECH REPUBLIC: "The
Pavel Masa commented in center-right daily Lidove noviny
(9/9): "Bush’s assessment of the
results of the two years of war against terrorism started with the usual
optimism, but went on to say that the victory would require further costs and
sacrifices.... This time we did not hear
the usual assurance that all those harboring terrorists would be confronted
with the full force of the U.S. We did,
however, hear that international help to the U.S. has become a priority.... The unfinished work in Afghanistan and Iraq
is beginning to show in his [Bush’s] weakened leadership force. This is not good news for U.S. allies.... We can be flattered by Powell including the
CR among the three closest U.S. allies in Iraq.
We, however, expect more than that from a superpower. Namely, that its effort to built a free and
prosperous world is not limited to the 'front line' leading through oil
deposits and deserts."
"Sympathy Won’t Help Bush"
Pavel Tomasek commented in the business daily Hospodarske
noviny (9/9): "The major
message [of President Bush’s speech] can be summed up in one figure--87 billion
U.S. dollars. That’s the amount that the
American taxpayers will pay for maintaining the U.S. military presence in Iraq
and Afghanistan next year.... The
situation is not an easy one; since the American health care and school systems
are lacking money, why should the U.S. finance the same things abroad? [Bush] cannot endlessly count on the voters’
sympathy...so he keeps connecting 9/11 and Saddam’s regime. The fact that he is unable to provide
evidence doesn’t matter--seventy three percent of Americans trust in
him.... They will support him, but only
if Iraq doesn’t turn into an openly hostile venue for American soldiers. The appeal for a broader international
involvement in Iraq is well justified...but Bush will need to offer more
substance to his European counterparts, since they cannot rely on the same
support of their electorate as he can."
Washington correspondent Gabor Horvath commented in leftist,
pro-government Nepszabadsag (9/9):
“We will not retreat! Bush said and then he did.... Bush...asked [U.S.] allies whom he had
humiliated...half a year ago to put aside former differences.... Bush has realized he needs French, Russian,
Chinese and German support, or else there will be no new UNSC resolution based
on which India, Pakistan and some other countries would also send
troops.... It took the Texan governor,
inexperienced in foreign policy, two years to realize that the United
States--though it is the world’s largest military and economic power--was not
omnipotent after all.”
NORWAY: "A President
On The Defensive"
The newspaper of record Aftenposten commented (9/9): "President George W. Bush is trying to
appear on the offensive, but it was a clearly pressured leader that appeared on
American TV screens on Sunday night when he gave his speech to the people about
Iraq and the consequences the situation there will have for both the American
soldiers, the American people and the entire world.... But what still remains with the President is
a very strong unwillingness to allow the international community, meaning the
UN, a part in the solution of a problem the U.S. will not be able to solve
alone. Even now his appeal to the UN is
marked by being more of a demand than a request.... What the President is really asking for is
that other countries, who were against the war, now must come forward with
money and soldiers in order to rescue the U.S. from an embarrassing--and
costly--situation. But that the U.S. is
to decide how this is to take place. The
President knows this is an impossible demand."
"Support For A War Out Of Control?"
The social democratic daily Dagsavisen observed (9/9): “President Bush demonstrated once again that
he is a man of big words with little content.
Of his people he demanded ‘will, determination and patience’ but he said
nothing about possible measures to remedy the ill-fated developments in
Iraq. He didn’t present a single idea
about how to create that stability in the region which has gradually become his
main argument for the necessity of war....
Bush demands that the United Nations lend a helping hand.... The international organization has an
obligation to alleviate need. But there
are people in the world who are far worse off than the Iraqis. There was no shortage of warnings and
resistance by UN offices before the U.S. war adventure in Iraq. There is therefore no getting away from the
fact that this is and will remain primarily a U.S. responsibility.”
The independent newspaper Dagbladet contended (9/9): “After its war adventure in Iraq the U.S.
needs help. It verges on audacity that
Bush now wants the global community to provide support to Iraq. Last fall he had no use for the UN.... Naturally, Norway and other countries just
contribute towards helping the Iraqis, who have been rid of their tyrant and
dictator. But the U.S. can no longer
demand to decide the military, political and economic development in the
country.... When the U.S. now wants an
international military force under American command, that must be rejected.”
"War That Costs"
The financial daily Dagens Næringsliv remarked (9/9): “Both the New York Times and the Washington
Post noted that Bush mentioned neither Osama Bin Laden nor weapons of mass
destruction in his speech. Nor did he
dwell on the conflict between Israel and Palestine, which he felt would solve
itself once Saddam Hussein disappeared.
That Bush also wants help from the UN, suggests that reality has made a
serious appearance in Washington.”
POLAND: "Fronts Of
Fight On Terror"
Bronislaw Wildstein wrote in centrist Rzeczpospolita
(9/9): “President Bush was right when he
said that Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism. The international Islamic terrorist
organizations have already announced they will fight their final struggle with
the forces occupying this country.
Defeating them is the only way to ensure stability in Iraq, and,
consequently, to ensure peace in the region.
The next step will be to build a state of law in Iraq.... This ambitious project, though, is very risky...and
extremely costly. The antagonists of
Bush--both foreign and domestic--have already taken advantage of the prolonged
fights and costs of occupation to picture the situation in Iraq as
failure. The upcoming elections have
undermined U.S. consensus around the intervention in the Middle East. America’s endeavors to have the UN more
engaged in the normalization of Iraq...are torpedoed mainly by France, which
dreams about playing a bigger role in international politics.... Thus the fundamental struggle for the future
of Iraq and the region will be fought beyond its borders.”
"What The President Left Unsaid"
Leopold Unger observed in liberal Gazeta Wyborcza
(9/9): “More important in the speech is
what was left unsaid. First, the
President did not specify conditions on which the U.S. would be willing to let
the UN co-manage the reconstruction and democratization of Iraq.... Second, he did not make any hint as to how
long the American and allied forces will stay in Iraq.... Which is no surprise, though: he did not
address this issue because he does not know the answer.”
U.S. correspondent Ervin Hladnik Milharcic editorialized in
left-of-center Delo (9/9): “The
Iraqi chapter of the American war against terrorism has become productive--it
has begun to create paradoxes. The war
began...in order to destroy Iraq’s WMD...but now we also know for sure that the
Americans were mistaken when they were stating that the world was on a brink of
destruction. We can sleep
peacefully.... Rather, we could if Iraq
had not been attacked by terrorists....
Before the United Nations sends our soldiers to Iraq, it must demand
that inspectors return. It would be good
to get the answer to the question whether the reasons for war were entirely
made up, or were they based on some serious indications. It is too dangerous to believe the Americans
only on the basis of their words.”
"Speaker In The Corner"
Andrej Brstovsek commented in left-of-center independent Dnevnik
(9/9): “American Presidents...address
people on TV when they plan to take the country into a major military
operation...before another important decision...or when they are in trouble or
pushed into a corner.... The address on
Sunday was a consequence of problems that the United States and the White House
have been facing in Iraq.... Bush has
been more and more often the target of domestic critics.... Dead soldiers are poison for presidents.... Public opinion polls have reflected
this.... Bush also tried to attract
public support by using a tested tactic; he closely connected Iraq with the war
against terrorism.... By pointing out
that past differences should not interfere with present duties, he indirectly
informed the international community that he was forced to slightly mitigate
his one-sided and rather stubborn Iraqi policy.... Nevertheless, domestic voters were the target
public of his speech. To the Security
Council members he only offered what was already being negotiated. However, this will not be enough for
countries such as France, Germany, and Russia who want a bigger role of the
UN--and indirectly of their own governments--in the political and economic
reconstruction of Iraq.”
"Did The U.S. Get In Trouble?"
Left-of-center independent Vecer published an editorial by
Bojan Bauman (9/9): "The winners in
Iraq are getting into more and more serious trouble. If they were not, President Bush would now
surely not address those who turned their backs on him during the invasion of
Iraq.... The French and Germans are not
enthusiastic about America’s newest idea....
After 9/11 Americans were already convinced twice that the best solution
to accumulated problems (which they also helped create) is war. First in Afghanistan, then in Iraq. They were wrong both times.... With President Bush’s speech another illusion
has vanished--that Iraqi oil would compensate the costs of engagement. Yet, there could be another explanation for
the increased military budget request--announcement of a new American military
intervention. However, considering the
new circumstances, this is unlikely. The
Americans are more and more isolated in their international actions."
TURKEY: "State Of The
Fehmi Koru argued in Islamist-intellectual Yeni Safak
(9/9): “President Bush acknowledged the
failure of the war-mongering lobby in Washington. He basically called on Americans to be
prepared for more troubled days ahead....
Despite Turkey’s focus on the part of the speech mentioning northern
Iraq, Bush has actually made more important remarks, including the U.S.
intention to give the UN a greater role in Iraq. Moreover, President Bush for the first time
touched on the subject of ‘leaving Iraq.’...
In the U.S. public, the fiscal burden of the Iraq operation and the additional
USD 87 billion will be the main factor to cause growing disappointment.... Bush is losing serious ground because of his
handling of the Iraq issue. President
Bush’s...address also proved once again the correctness of Turkey’s decision to
stay out of the war, which was based on lies and false claims in the first
"A Dual Game"
Zafer Atay stated in economic-political Dunya (9/9): “The anti-Turkish, pro-Kurdish remarks by
northern Iraqi Kurdish figures are not just ordinary comments. Turkey should not underestimate these
remarks, because they could not be possible without U.S. backing. The U.S. is very much aware of Iraqi Kurdish
sentiment about Turkey. On the one hand
the U.S. overlooks the anti-Turkish statements by Iraqi Kurds, and on the other
hand Washington knocks on Turkey’s door for the deployment of Turkish troops in
Iraq.... There are two ways to explain
this odd situation. Either the U.S.
administration does not have enough influence over the Kurds, or the U.S. is
playing a double game by working with Turkey and giving concessions to the
Kurds at the same time. Both
possibilities are very bad.”
ISRAEL: "The Risks Of
Conservative, independent Jerusalem Post editorialized
(9/9): "Bush warned, 'Enemies of
freedom are making a desperate stand there and there they must be
defeated.' But how can they be defeated
if the U.S. seems afraid to name them or their state sponsors? Or if the U.S. deliberately limits the
battleground to its own turf, rather than causing Iran and Syria to pay a price
for challenging America's paramount interests?
In the days, weeks, and months following September 11, 2001, Bush seemed
to be following his own moral compass, which guided him surely in a situation
without precedent. When challenged for
being too bold, he became bolder. Now,
following his greatest victory and approaching his race for reelection, Bush
seems not to want to rock the boat. The
tyrants of this region, however, will smell timidity and take advantage. The result will be much rockier than if Bush
took charge of events as before, rather than let himself, his nation, and the
world be buffeted by them."
Samir Ragab observed in small-circulation, pro-government Al
Gomhouriya (9/9): “Bush came--now,
when it is too late--to ask the UN to work to save the American and British
armies from their impasse....
Undoubtedly, these horrible facts must have caused disappointment among
Americans in their government, which had persuaded them that the war against
Iraq would take only a few days or weeks....
True, Iraq fell in 21 days, but the dramatic repercussions have been too
much for the American soldiers to bear, and their cries over the Internet are
salient proof. It is enough that the
American president, who raised the slogan of 'shock and awe,' is now admitting
that Iraqi resistance inflicted major harm on his invading troops. The American man-on-the-street must, by now,
be very embarrassed by his government, which initially defied the UN and now
humbly asks for its help.... In any
event, the situation in Iraq clearly is dangerous and the American masters have
admitted it. They have only two choices: either withdraw or pay the price with the
blood of American soldiers. The decision
"The UN’s Role Of Waste Collection"
Aggressive pro-government Al Akhbar columnist Amal Al
Maghraby wrote (9/9): "Next week
the UNSC arena is expected to witness a harsh diplomatic battle between the
U.S. administration and the anti-war camp represented by France, Germany and
Russia.... Although the draft resolution
implies an importance change in U.S. policy towards Iraq and a retraction of
its contemptuous position of the UN, still it bears nothing different from the
previous resolution three weeks ago....
However, the contents of the resolution do not include a serious U.S.
readiness to change its policy toward Iraq....
Germany and France have not totally closed the door in Washington’s
face...and they will demand a high price in return.... That is why Washington’s success in issuing a
UNSC resolution will be another victory, and also an encouragement...for it to
surrender Iraq to the UN after having achieved its goal with Iraq.”
Jeddah’s English language daily, Saudi Gazette held
(9/9): "In his Sunday speech,
President George Bush did not say anything that he hasn’t already said.... The president wants poorer Americans to prove
their patriotism by contributing to his war-chest, while the robbers enjoy tax
cuts.... The president was
unconvincing. His prime address is not
expected to increase his vote tally in November 2004, nor win friends in the
international community. Some Americans
have rightly pointed out the Iraq is not an election issue and that the
president failed to answer tough questions.
The American people are not on the same wavelength with their
leader. They are sharply divided over
whether the war against Iraq was a success or not. The presidential speech had no real substance
to transform that confusion into a public assertion that the country was
successful in Iraq. The reality on the
ground in Iraq--as well as in Afghanistan--is conveying a different
"Sharing Of Burden And Authority In Iraq"
Riyadh’s moderate, Al-Jazira opined (9/9): "If Washington wanted the help of others
to get it out of its current dilemma in Iraq, it should agree to allow a real
international effort on the civilian side as well as on the military side. States will not accept sharing the burden
only, but insist on sharing authority, responsibilities and also war
SYRIA: "A Depressing
Hamed Houran commented in government-owned Al-Ba'th,
(9/9): "President Bush’s speech on
the state of Iraq points to the political dilemma he is drowning in. Despite this, he did not offer any clear plan
to salvage his country from the danger of sinking totally into the Iraqi
sands.... Within this context, attempts
to issue a new UNSC resolution to bring international forces to Iraq are
nothing but a flagrant maneuver to hide his dilemma and failure.... He might accept granting some alleged
authority to the UN to gain some international support for such a
resolution.... No doubt that the entry
of the international forces at this phase will turn them into a shield to
prevent attacks by Iraqi freedom fighters on American forces. They will not be a real partner in
establishing the security lost at the hands of the Americans
themselves.... In addition, the most
important Iraqi demand was absent in Bush’s speech; namely, to fix a date to
withdraw his occupying forces and leave matters for Iraqis to run their affairs
UAE: "France Is
Dubai-based business-oriented Al Bayan editorialized
(9/6): "The French position is the
right attitude to re-establish security in Iraq, because without transferring
authority and responsibility to the Iraqi people, security will always be
lost.... The three positions (of France,
Germany, and Russia) show a real desire for the re-establishment of stability
and security in Iraq."
"U.S. Policy Will Not Succeed"
Sharjah-based pan-Arab Al Khaleej editorialized (9/6): "Chirac, Schroeder and others realize
that the goal behind the American resolution submitted to the UN is to drag the
rest of the countries to the Iraqi quagmire under the UN flag, and not to get
Iraq out of the current occupation....
Trying to go around international legitimacy or seeking to use it for
the benefit of the American policy will not succeed because of the awareness
that the U.S. is in serious trouble, and getting out of this problem won't
occur except by going back to the UN."
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
AUSTRALIA: "Bush Needs
To Mend Fences"
The business-oriented Australian Financial Review
editorialized (9/9): “The most important
segment of George Bush’s speech to rally support for the faltering effort to
pacify Iraq was also the shortest.... He
devoted just seen or eight short paragraphs to the case for other nations to
back the U.S. and British occupying forces in Iraq with troops and money of
their own under a new United Nations resolution.... Bush has a point, but it is one that he
should have made months ago, when he prematurely announced the end of
hostilities.... Mr. Bush might have
presented his case more as a request for help rather than a challenge to
shirkers to pull their socks up.... A
genuinely multinational force needs to be assembled to make and keep the peace
in Iraq.… Merely re-badging the U.S. forces as 'UN' won’t fool anyone and could
further damage the UN’s credibility which has already been badly hurt by the
Security Council’s loss of control of the prewar agenda.... Whether by accident or design, Iraq has
become the central front in the war on terrorism. That means the campaign to pacify Iraq cannot
be allowed to fail. All nations...need
to recognize this and work towards a solution that maximizes the chances of
"Collateral Damage For Dubya Means Fight Is On To Save
Roy Eccleston wrote from Washington in the conservative Australian
(9/9): “The war on terrorism uplifted
George W. Bush’s presidency--but now threatens to suck him under. The President knows it, and he is shifting
course with a call for UN help in Iraq, and a plea for patience from an
increasingly restive U.S.public. Bush’s
troubles are numerous and threaten his credibility. There are no weapons of mass destruction
found in Iraq, no Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, and the death toll is
rising from guerrilla attacks that threaten to produce chaos.”
Cooperation Needed to Rebuild Iraq"
The top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri editorialized
(9/9): "President Bush called Iraq
the 'central front' in the long and costly U.S. war on terrorism and urged the
international community to contribute more to Iraq's reconstruction. We support the President's speech.... If left as it is, Iraq could become a hotbed
of international terrorists. To break
the stalemate in Iraq's situation, the U.S. has drafted a new UN resolution on
Iraq that authorizes the creation and dispatch of a multinational force to
Iraq.... As a close U.S. ally and a
member of the world community, Japan cannot remain indifferent to the U.S. call
for assistance. The GOJ should send SDF
troops and give financial support to assist in Iraq and Afghan
"Before Calling For Other Nations' Assistance…"
An editorial in the liberal Asahi observed (9/9): "Despite continuing acts of terrorism, a
rise in U.S. troop casualties and declining public support for his Iraq policy,
President Bush did not admit his administration's miscalculation in the war
with Iraq. The President not only asked
for an additional 87 billion USD in the budget to cover military and other
operations, but also asked Japan, the EU and Middle Eastern nations to
contribute more to Iraq's reconstruction.
Why didn't Mr. Bush admit his own miscalculation in the Iraq war in the
first place? The U.S. cannot call on
other nations to give financial or other assistance without fully disclosing
its Iraq peace and reconstruction plans.
The U.S. should now change course and seek world support for these
plans. Japan should not comply readily
with Washington's call for a greater contribution to Iraq's
reconstruction. Japan and other members
of the international community should give a helping hand only under the UN's
Iraq reconstruction initiative."
CHINA (HONG KONG SAR):
"U.S. Unilateralism Faces Crisis"
The pro-PRC Chinese-language Macau Daily News editorialized
(9/8): "Until recently, the U.S.
was not willing to let the UN lead the reconstruction of the post-war
Iraq. The U.S. is afraid that it will
have to share its interests in Iraq with other countries.... Because of this, the new resolution to the UN
proposed by the U.S. is quite unreasonable.
On one hand, it requests that the UN send multinational troops to
Iraq. On the other hand, the U.S. will
be responsible for commanding the troops....
The actual power will still be in the hands of the U.S. administrator
stationed in Iraq. This, of course,
incurred strong displeasure from the international community, especially France
and Germany, who openly opposed the U.S.'s involvement in Iraq. They made some fundamental adjustments to the
new U.S. resolution. They believe that
since the U.S. has asked other countries to 'share the burden,' it has to share
the decision-making and reconstruction interests in Iraq.... In brief, unilateralism cannot work in a
INDONESIA: "Bush, The
Lone Ranger In Afghanistan And Iraq"
Independent Media Indonesia commented (9/9): “Bush was not as tough as he was four months
ago when he announced U.S. victory in Iraq.
This time he delivered his speech amid divided opinions throughout the
world, including in the U.S., about regime change in another country…. Bush made a blunder when he identified
terrorism with the state. Afghanistan
was identified with Osama and Iraq with Saddam.
Worse still, those states were accused of being terrorist states. Bush adopted a unilateral police force,
ignoring the UN, as representative of the world community. Now that Bush is overwhelmed by the problems
of funds and forces, he is persuading the UN to take part in its operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq, trying to convince it that the U.S. interests are the
world’s interests too. And, as the
common practice, the no-longer independent UN will sooner or later follow the
Elite, Thai-language Matichon remarked (9/9): “The hostile and life-threatening situation
facing American troops will lead to a political problem in the U.S. Campaigns against the Iraq war will be
launched during election campaigns to begin soon. Therefore, a way out for the George W. Bush
administration is to find a way to get the UN to dispatch international
peacekeeping troops to Iraq. The U.S.
will then be spared the troubles for sending in more troops and its costs will
be reduced. Should the UN decide to send
troops to help the U.S. in Iraq, the morale of U.S. troops would be boosted and
the UN would be drawn into the U.S. camp.
That would give the Bush administration the legitimacy to occupy
Iraq. More importantly, the UN troops
would help take the bullets for their U.S colleagues!”
Manh Tuong wrote in the army daily Quan Doi Nhan Dan,
(9/9): "The speech Mr. Bush
delivered...focused more on rationalizing the difficulties the U.S. military is
facing in Iraq.... Pacifying Iraq has
become a prolonged hard task, much more than Mr. Bush's prediction. It is certain that the longer this situation
lasts, the more coffins with bodies of killed U.S. soldiers inside will come
back to the U.S. That will be extremely
unfavorable as the campaign for the 2004 presidential elections is heating up. Not getting out of the Iraq quagmire in time
will destroy all calculations that Mr. Bush has."
SOUTH AFRICA: "Sound
The liberal Cape Times held (9/9): "President George Bush...offered no
clear outline of how he planned to deal with the ongoing conflict in Iraq,
never mind how to pursue the international war on terrorism.... It is quite disappointing that nothing more
substantial came out...than a request to Congress for $87 billion to fight
terrorism.... The anger, frustration and
hatred which provided the motivating forces behind the attacks in the U.S. two
years ago and now on it troops in Iraq and elsewhere must be addressed. That point has been made repeatedly and
vociferously.... Now, however, Bush once
again seems to be relying on the iron fist....
The absence of a more coherent and holistic approach means that
long-lasting peace will continue to elude the U.S. and its allies. That was the brutal but clear message of
September 11. If the U.S. fails to
listen, it will be dishonoring the memory of the thousands who perished that
NIGERIA: "Bridging The
Abuja-based independent Daily Trust editorialized
(9/9): "Having ridden roughshod
over international opinion by invading Iraq on trumped up charges, the UK/U.S.
leaders are encountering ‘unforeseen difficulties’ in their attempt to bridge
the quicksand of that ancient nation.
They are reportedly proposing ‘a more comprehensive role for the UN in
Iraq,’ which has prompted gleeful but hasty quips about their humiliation by
pundits that obviously do not understand the tactical goals of their global
strategy. For despite their apparent
diplomatic quandary, the UK/U.S. leaders remain not only confident of
installing a suitably constituted UN command to administer occupied Iraq but
even of enthroning its Security Council (more or less as presently structured)
as the inviolable global sovereign; and why not? Their programmatic objectives are seemingly
insured by their skilful manipulation of mankind’s fears, blind sentimentality,
UGANDA: "U.S. Has
Burnt Fingers In Iraq"
The independent daily The Monitor contended (9/9): "How surprising that the greatest power
ever in the history of mankind, the United States, with all the resources and
information at its disposal, opted to commit the mistake of enforcing a
unilateral regime change in Iraq....
Mounting home pressure explains Bush’s current willingness to more
broadly involve the United Nations in Iraq, regarding the deployment of troops
and cash.... Stabilizing Iraq and
returning to the Iraqi people their sovereignty are in the interest of world
peace and more money is not the solution.
Washington's current unilateralist approach to Iraq has to be
CANADA: "Dreams Of
Empire Dance In Their Heads"
Political columnist Jeffrey Simpson observed in the leading Globe
and Mail (9/9): "The U.S.
occupation is going well in the Kurdish area of the north, but the Americans
are bogged down elsewhere..... Now,
belatedly, President Bush admits his administration needs more money for
occupying Iraq, money from a budget his administration has already driven deep
into the red. He even wants what the
red-blooded neo-conservatives who dominate his administration detest: more help
from the hated United Nations, including a Security Council resolution.... The U.S. war against Iraq was based on two
false premises: that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he
threatened the security of the United States.
Those premises having been exposed as false, the administration has fallen
back on the invasion being necessary to remake Iraq as a democratic state. The U.S. mission has created strange
intellectual bedfellows between the neo-conservative warriors and the
humanitarian liberals, both groups now arguing with increasing urgency, even
desperation, that liberating Iraq was the goal all along. The neo-conservatives and liberals are both
missionaries of a sort, and not just in remaking Iraq but in bringing democracy
to the Arab world.... Being
missionaries, neither the neo-conservatives nor liberals can easily withdraw
from commitments, since they fear it would be seen as a slippery slope leading
to a weakening of resolve or the abandonment of principles. So they press on, asking for more money,
urging further sacrifices from their own people, digging deeper holes,
demanding help from others, as long as their own country continues to run the
"Who's Winning The War On Terror? Sorry, George"
Anthony Westell remarked in the leading Globe and Mail
(9/9): "That Mr. Bush has several
times changed his story about Iraq has tended to undermine his
credibility. First, Iraq was part of an
axis of evil because it sponsored terrorists.
Next, Iraq was a direct threat to the United States because it had
weapons of mass destruction. Then, when
no WMD were found, the fact that Saddam was a brutal dictator was enough. Now, as of Mr. Bush's broadcast...the attack
is justified because Iraq has become the central battlefield in the war against
terrorism. What is clear is that Iraq
had little or nothing to do with terrorism, but it is now a new battlefront for
terrorists, a huge political problem for Mr. Blair and a looming problem for
Mr. Bush. Without question, Iraq is a
bonus for Mr. bin Laden.... Mr. Bush, to
give him credit for good intentions, hopes to develop in Iraq a model democracy
that will offer those better prospects, and attract other Arab states to follow
its example. The problem is that it
looks increasingly unrealistic, a naive idea produced by ideologues with little
experience on the Middle Eastern ground.
As we have seen in Britain's former colonies, democracy is not easy to
teach; people have to learn it for themselves.
In Iraq, that will take a long time and huge amounts of U.S. cash, which
the country can't afford--and right now, civil war seems an equally likely
"Now's Not Time To Say, 'I Told You So'"
National affairs writer James Travers contended in the liberal Toronto
Star (9/9): "Now that the Bush
Doctrine's underbelly is exposed, now that Saddam is on the threshold of
bringing down the son as well as the father, panic is driving a more
cooperative approach to international relations. That sudden renaissance is ripe with pitfalls
as well as opportunity. It would be
utter foolishness for the international community to attempt to salvage Iraq,
as Bush suggests, under U.S. command.
Anything less than a credible UN mandate will be resisted ferociously,
leaving the world the impossible task of cleaning up after the U.S.
elephant. But throwing Bush a lifeline
makes good sense and better policy if it restores some global balance. That delicate fulcrum will have to be found
at the Security Council where a significant diplomatic price will be attached
to getting the U.S. out of the Iraq quagmire and perhaps saving Bush's second
term. Canada's role is clear. With all available troops committed to the real
war on terrorism in Afghanistan, Ottawa can only urge allies to respond to the
U.S. cry for assistance and press Washington equally hard to accept conditions
that will attract that help. What it's
not, is a time for smugness or to let the words, 'I told you so,' cross
The conservative tabloid Ottawa Sun opined (9/9): "There would appear to exist a kind of
bitter satisfaction among some world leaders over America's unravelling
fortunes in Iraq, especially now that the U.S. is calling on the United Nations
to share the burden of rebuilding and revitalizing that country.... There is no doubt the George W. Bush
administration failed to accurately predict the length and breadth of the
reconstruction task in Iraq, let alone the 'democratization' of the nation,
which was to accompany it.... It is in
no one's interest that the plight of the Iraqi people be aggravated, nor their
recovery delayed. It can only be in the
interest of global security that plans for restoring the country's
infrastructure and replacing the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein proceed quickly.... Canada must get onside, too. Even if our military capacity is now too
anemic to make an immediate contribution, our voice should be on the side of
rebuilding and democratization--without malice."
"Bush's Terror War Needs UN Assist"
The liberal Toronto Star editorialized (9/9): "While Bush now accepts that he needs
United Nations help in his increasingly makeshift 'war on terror,' after
prematurely judging the UN irrelevant, he refuses to give the Security Council
the central role overseeing Iraq's return to self-rule. Yet that is what's needed to give the U.S.
occupation legitimacy and to generate broader support."
"War On Terror Report Card"
Editorial page editor emeritus Haroon Siddiqui reflected in the
liberal Toronto Star (9/7):
"The chaos in Iraq, far worse than in the early years of Vietnam,
will continue for the foreseeable future.
While Washington is asking the Security Council for foreign troops, hard
cash and a helping hand in humanitarian aid, it wants to retain military and political
control of Iraq. This does not represent
a move toward multilateralism, as portrayed.
It is a way of having others clean up America's mess, while America
keeps the keys to Iraq. The proposition
is not likely to be acceptable, nor should it be, to France, Germany, Turkey,
India or Pakistan, which opposed the war in the first place and got insulted
and ignored for it. More important, the
United Nations should not be in the business of supplying a fig leaf for an
American hegemonic enterprise. Iraq
should be placed under UN trusteeship.
Paul Bremer, the American ruler of Iraq, should step aside.... International trusteeship would draw other
nations, along with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. It would end the scandal of American
corporations friendly to the Bush administration--Bechtel, Halliburton and
others--raking in billions of dollars in contracts while Iraqis have little
food, no jobs, no incomes.... Not only
have George W. Bush's claims for invading Iraq turned out to be fraudulent: no
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons; no proof of an Iraqi link to Al Qaeda;
no hint of any Iraqi capability to attack Israel, let alone America. The domino effect he predicted hasn't
materialized, either. America is more
hated than before the war.... America
became a great nation through a combination of military and economic might and
democratic values. The Bush
administration has squandered the moral part of that potent combination."
ARGENTINA: "Iraq: A
New Failed State"
Leading Clarin remarked (9/8): "By asking the international political
and financial support for the reconstruction of Iraq, the USG has begun to
acknowledge that not even the most extraordinary deployment of military power allows
the U.S. to unilaterally establish satisfactory rules in scenarios of
conflict.... It is a sign of
acknowledgment that neither the Iraqi people nor the world or American society
accept the prospect of a new colonialism as a way to solve the most serious
threats posed to international peace and security.... Another unlucky possibility would be the
balkanization of Iraq.... Far from the
Washington's promise to build a capitalistic democracy in the country...'a
criminal state' would be replaced by a 'failed state.'"
Center-left Jornal do Brasil editorialized (9/8): "U.S. society is finally realizing what
the entire world already knew: the U.S. no longer knows what to do with
Iraq.... The extraordinary arrogance demonstrated
by the American administration, putting the UN aside when it intended to invade
Iraq, had to have its consequences....
At any rate the upcoming episode of a 'mea culpa' is surprising: a
society always so efficient admits it has failed. It's hard to swallow the post-war formula
used in Iraq: using military command to promote civil settlement. It never works to use a foreign force to
sustain peace. The United Nations has to
resume command of building democracy amidst violence. What is good for Iraq is valid for the