It's not only generals who are always fighting the last war

Today's NYT has a lead editorial calling, once again, for the US to cede control over Iraq to the United Nations.   At this point, its difficult to know whether they seriously believe that this represents a viable policy option for the US or merely a convenient bludgeon to use against President Bush.

Consider the following proposal:

The real work of guiding Iraq's political transition will fall to the new top United Nations representative for Iraq, who will succeed the man killed in the August bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, Sergio de Vieira de Mello. A permanent successor is not expected to be named until January, but an interim appointment should be made as soon as possible. Until security in Baghdad improves, the new representative could be based in a nearby country, like Cyprus, Lebanon or Jordan.

U.N. relief and development specialists also need to start returning to Iraq and are prepared to do so as soon as the Security Council is satisfied with the arrangements for transferring sovereignty. Given that these specialists cannot work out of fortified bunkers, there are serious safety risks. Yet many of these brave and dedicated people will likely agree to go back.

Let me see if I've got this straight:   the UN, which has been unable (or unwilling) to find even an interim replacement for Mr. Vieira de Mello in the more than three months since his murder, should now be given responsibility for governing Iraq -- by remote control, since it is too dangerous to actually have this person live in Iraq.   Furthermore, UN relief and development specialists (who presumably are primarily concerned with meeting the humanitarian and civil requirements of the Iraqi people), are now not prepared to return until the UNSC is "satisfied with the arrangements for transferring sovereignty"!   And here I had been thinking that the UN staff withdrew from Iraq because of concerns over their own safety.

Evidently, the NYT's editorial board believes in the happy fantasy that the thugs and terrorists who are killing Iraqi policemen, international aid workers, Italian and Spanish military policemen and security personnel, and US troops will lay down their bombs when the UN waves its magic wand of "international legitimacy" over Iraq.

The sooner the U.N. returns to Iraq, the greater influence it will have over the political transformation. And the more internationally legitimate that transformation looks, the more manageable the security situation is eventually likely to become.

If only it were that easy.  I respectfully submit that these nimrods on 43rd Street in New York City have no idea what they are talking about.   The deposed Baathist leaders and their Islamist terrorist allies couldn't care less about international legitimacy.   They want to regain control in Iraq and return to their former positions of wealth and power.   In order to achieve this goal, they are systematically attempting to sabotage reconstruction efforts and murder or intimidate Iraqis and foreigners who are trying to build a new society in that country.

For example, take the latest major initiative undertaken by what the French press has taken to calling the "Iraqi resistance": their failed attempt yesterday to ambush US military convoys delivering new Iraqi currency to the banks in and around Samarra.   Aside from the fact that it was a major military defeat for the insurgents (46 to 54 fedayeen killed by various counts versus 6 Coalition soldiers and one civilian contractor injured), their choice of a target (a currency delivery) was emblematic.   These are not idealistic defenders of Iraqi sovereignty, they are thugs and gangsters who see violence and terror as the only way to regain their former positions of wealth and power.

The other aspect of wishful thinking in the NYT's editorial is its endorsement of the myth that putting Kofi Annan and his crew in charge will open the floodgates of international military and economic aid to Iraq:

It is in everybody's interest to get the United Nations back into Iraq as quickly as possible. It would help Washington, which wants other countries to share the burdens of peacekeeping and reconstruction and needs to stop being seen as an occupying power. It would benefit Iraqis, who will regain a credible sovereignty only under international auspices and who have suffered from the withdrawal of relief workers after the August bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad. And it would advance the goals of France, Germany and Russia, which want to end America's occupation administration at the earliest possible date.

Does the Times seriously think that France, Germany and Russia are going to be volunteering to send troops to help stabilize UN control in Iraq any time soon?   Our allies in Europe are already struggling to increase the NATO force deployed in Afghanistan beyond its current level of 5,700 soldiers.   The idea that France or Germany would (or even could) replace a meaningful portion of the approximately 130,000 US soldiers in Iraq is simply ridiculous.   Similarly, given their economic and fiscal challenges (don't forget that France and Germany are both in violation of EU regulations regarding permitted government deficits), it is highly unlikely that either country would contribute significant financial aid (or even forgiveness of Saddam's debts) to help lift the US' burden.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there is no shortcut to peace and stability in Iraq.   And while it would be nice if the UN were to play a more constructive role, no serious analyst can believe that putting the UN in charge would do anything to help improve the lives and security of the Iraqi people.   If the NYT really wants to help bring peace and stability to Iraq, it should forget about last year's battle over "unilateralism" and focus on supporting a bi-partisan consensus for US engagement in Iraq until the job of reconstruction is completed.