November
16, 2004
'A Fundamental Disagreement' Over More Than Iraq
By Senator
Jon Kyl
Just before
Iraqi and coalition troops launched the long-awaited battle to
retake the city of Fallujah from lawless insurgents, United Nations
Secretary General Kofi Annan issued a letter that, as the Los
Angeles Times put it, illustrates "a fundamental disagreement
between the U.S.-led coalition and the U.N. about how best to
bring stability to Iraq." It goes to the heart of the larger
question of the post-9/11 world: how civilized societies should
confront the reality of a large, international network of radical
Islamists whose goal is our annihilation and whose principal tool
is terrorism.
This great
conflict is tragic and frightening, but not altogether without
precedent. Adolph Hitler's vision of Nazi domination presented
to European leaders in the 1930s a similar choice between aggressive
confrontation and appeasement, provoking a debate with eerie similarities
to today's.
Under normal
circumstances, of course, peace is the heartfelt desire of all
honorable men and women who seek only to live in freedom and in
harmony with their neighbors. But as Hitler proved, sometimes
accommodation is not an option. Or, as Tolstoy put it, "You
may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
President
Bush and his allies in Congress and abroad have looked squarely
into the eyes of radical Islamic fundamentalists and arrived at
the measured conclusion that, ultimately, there can be no compromise
between our way of life and theirs. Given the stated desire of
groups such as al Qaeda to impose universal sharia, or traditional
Islamic law, and to slaughter those who object - not to mention
their demonstrated willingness to commit suicide in the process
- there is simply no 'middle ground.'
Unfortunately,
as in the years before World War II, there are those who will
go to great lengths to avoid confronting such unpleasant realities.
Which brings us back to Kofi Annan's letter, addressed to President
Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and interim Iraqi leader
Ayad Allawi.
In it, Annan
voiced his increasing concern at the "prospect of an escalation
in violence," particularly the reports of major military
offensives being planned for Falluja. "Ultimately,"
Annan argued, "the problem of insecurity can only be addressed
through dialogue and an inclusive political process."
It boggles
the mind that a world leader could display such naivete in the
face of efforts by thousands of insurgents and foreign fighters
to terrorize and impose a Taliban-style rule in Fallujah, complete
with summary executions. Reaction from those on the ground was
swift and angry. "I don't know what pressure he has to bear
on the insurgents," Allawi said in an interview with the
BBC. "If he can stop [them] from inflicting damage and killing
Iraqis, then he's welcome." Later, Allawi responded formally
to Annan, in a letter so forceful it merits an extended excerpt:
You
suggested that the prospect of an escalation in violence could
be very disruptive to Iraq's political transition. I share this
view. But I believe that this argues for taking firm steps now
to tackle the violence we face today. Unchecked, this violence
will escalate... At the moment, we have parts of the country
in which the civilian population has been hijacked by the terrorists
and insurgents operating from places like Fallujah [who] are
exporting their violence to other parts of the country.
I was a little surprised by the lack of any mention in your
letter of the atrocities which these groups have committed.
... The same group who murdered so many of your staff in the
bombing of the UN headquarters last year, has since murdered
hundreds of innocent Iraqis and committed countless other atrocities.
I share your strong preference for a political solution over
military confrontation. But I did not find in your letter a
new plan or a new strategy beyond this strong preference. Essentially,
the violent groups have rejected the rule-of-law, without which
there can be no democracy. I am not prepared to allow these
groups a veto over democracy in Iraq, nor to continue to terrorize
the vast majority of Iraqis who want to live in peace and freedom.
The conclusion
is unavoidable that, in the words of the Heritage Foundation,
"While Iraqis are dying in large numbers at the hands of
Al-Qaeda backed foreign fighters and former Baathists, the UN
leader's chief concern appears to be the need to negotiate with
the insurgents and open 'a new chapter of inclusiveness and national
reconciliation.' Annan's letter will give aid and comfort to some
of the most barbaric terrorists of modern times."
This is particularly
galling given the massive scandal over the UN-administered Oil-for-Food
program, and the Security Council's utter failure to deal with
Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime and his flouting of endless
UN resolutions, its lack of leadership in disarming Iran, and
its paralysis in the face of genocide in the Sudan. Worse, the
US government has repeatedly asked the United Nations to provide
more experts to help prepare for Iraq's January elections, but
Annan - who apparently has no sense of irony - has limited the
staff in Iraq to 35 until they can be guaranteed better protection.
Last week,
the State Department announced that the nation of Georgia would
send 691 troops to Iraq as part of a special UN security force.
Tiny Fiji has committed another 170 troops to protect UN workers
and facilities. One hopes that the leader of the so-called "world
body" can take heart from the bravery of these small, poor
nations and decide that it's time to play a role in Iraq that
does more good than harm.
