Alexander's Column

17 UN resolutions later

Mark Alexander · Feb. 21, 2003

Top of the fold…

In 1991, Saddam Hussein signed a binding agreement of surrender as a precondition to the cessation of Gulf War hostilities – the subsequent violation of which is, in effect, grounds to resume the military campaign against Iraq. A decade of Clintonian “foreign policy” and seventeen UN resolutions later, the UN General Assembly continued debate this week on – we suppose – the futility of its resolutions.

Not to be outdone by the UN’s venture into irrelevance, French head-cheese-eating surrender monkey Jacques Chirac chastised the newly freed nations of Eastern Europe for supporting the U.S. anti-terrorist campaign, rather than quietly conforming like lemmings to Chirac’s charade. “It is not really responsible behavior, it is not well brought-up behavior,” said Chirac. “They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet.”

In defense of the unified support of Central and East European nations for the U.S. hard line on Iraq, Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga fired back: “These countries, and especially the Baltic states, know what tyranny means and what the consequences of tolerating tyrants can be. We felt it, lived it, suffered it. We certainly have seen the results of appeasement. It’s much easier to tolerate a dictator when he’s dictating over somebody else’s life and not your own. … We did stick our neck out, and we will not pull it back.” Touché!

“We thought we were preparing for war with Saddam Hussein and not Jacques Chirac,” was the dry remark of the Czech Republic’s deputy foreign minister, Alexandr Vondra. Well, as President George Bush declared over a year ago, you’re either with us or with the terrorists….

Back to the war with Jihadistan and the front with Iraq, the U.S. has, ostensibly, conceded to the UN Security Council’s request for yet another resolution (#18) on Iraq, to be presented Monday. The joint-sponsored U.S.-British resolution will declare Iraq in “further material breach” of its obligations to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction, though the resolution will not include a stated deadline for Iraqi compliance – a point previously insisted upon by the Bush and Blair governments. Submitting the new resolution on Monday, however, runs against the prevailing school of thought in the Security Council – to wait until after UN chief weapons inspector Han Blix’s report to the UNSC in early March before issuing any new resolution.

By submitting the latest resolution now, and not waiting for the Blix report, the U.S. has – contrary to popular logic – pulled off a diplomatic sweep. By actually offering a new resolution and thereby exhausting all diplomatic avenues, the Bush administration bolsters the legitimacy of its cause before the nation and world. Also, this final diplomatic gesture gives the U.S. time to finish positioning military assets for an attack, as well as time to resolve outstanding issues with Turkey over the use of their country as the staging area for a northern assault against Iraq. Finally, while the resolution’s absence of a firm deadline for Iraqi disarmament is a U.S. concession, it may actually work in the favor of war planners, who prefer to begin any military incursion by the last week of February.

While Leftmedia and foreign policy pundits are all asserting this latest resolution concession is indicative of willingness on the part of the U.S. and Britain to take a diplomatic black eye, The Federalist’s analytical staff views the U.S. strategy as nothing less than an end-run – a coup designed to ultimately circumvent the encumbrances of the UN, and secure the objective of disarmament and regime change in Iraq on our schedule. (While The Federalist Editor for Standards and Practices does not condone gambling, we do have an match-stick office pool for the commencement of hostilities ranges in the 72 hour window on either side of 0200 Iraq local time, 02 March.)

Planning is well under way for a post-war configuration for political power sharing in Iraq, perhaps under a confederated system that maintains the overall unity of the existing state. A provisional government in the making is taking shape in Kurdistan now – and should Turkey continue to be recalcitrant over access to its bases, Kurdistan may prove a ready alternative.

Speaking of post-war configurations, our analysts still estimate that, shortly after commencement of hostilities, Saddam will take leave to Tripoli, Algiers or Tehran. Iran obviously has some residual problems with Saddam, and they also have a growing democracy movement that might get legs after regime change in Iraq. Saddam is still shopping digs in Tehran because he knows Hamossad can more easily “visit him” in Tripoli and Algiers. Of course, as noted in The Federalist last month, we still think Paris is an excellent exile option. Surely Saddam’s closest ally, France, would provide him adequate protection! (Why don’t the French just remove the red and blue from their tri-colored flag – lest anyone still have a doubt.)

And speaking of white flags, “peace” adolescents marched in cities around the world this past week – some of them were sincere – however nescient. Of note, according to reformed radical David Horowitz: “Every major ‘anti-war’ demonstration to date … has been organized and controlled by a self-styled Communist group called the Workers World Party, and its front ‘International A.N.S.W.E.R.’ ”

Of the protests, friend of The Federalist Thomas Sowell concluded: “It is a painful reminder of human folly, irresponsibility, and exhibitionism that millions of ‘anti-war’ demonstrators have somehow convinced themselves that they have some special aversion to war. No sane human being wants war. … There would be cheers throughout the White House if Saddam Hussein decided to pack his bags and go into retirement somewhere. The real question is: What are the alternatives at this point? … ‘Anti-war’ demonstrators act as if we have a choice whether or not to be at war. We were already at war before September 11, 2001, which served to shock many of us into an awareness of that fact.”

Already at war, indeed – for at least a decade. Of course the nation should have been “shocked into that awareness” with Jihadistan’s first assault on the U.S. – sheik Ramzi Yousef’s bombing of the north tower of the WTC, February 26, 1993. (If Ramzi’s terrorist cell knew a bit more about engineering and where to place their truck bomb, they could have collapsed the north tower into the south.) Then Jihadis focused on American targets abroad – Khobar Towers in 1996, two of our African embassies in 1998 (the same year Hussein kicked out weapons inspectors) and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 – all without reprisal.

It was not until 9-11 of ‘01, when Jihadi sheik Osama bin Laden finished the business that Ramzi started in 1993, that most of our nation was awakened to the imminent threat to our homeland. It is time the rest of America – even “Hanoi Jane” Fonda and her cadre of celebrity protestors – awoke to the fact that nuclear weapons developed by tyrants like Saddam Hussein WILL be transported to, and detonated in, U.S. urban centers by Jihadi surrogates like al-Qa'ida. President George Bush’s foreign policy shift from containment to preemption is the only defense against such terrorists.

In other news…

University of South Florida “computer engineering” professor Sami Al-Arian was arrested and charged with seven other men yesterday for the operation of a global terrorist organization, The Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The PIJ is designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. government, and is responsible for the deaths of some 100 people in Israel. The group’s manifesto refers to the U.S. as “the Great Satan America,” and openly commits itself to the end of western influence in the Middle East and the eradication of the Israeli state. In a statement reminiscent of the Bush Doctrine that does not distinguish between terrorists and their state sponsors, Attorney General John Ashcroft said of the arrests, “Our message to them and others like them is clear. We make no distinction to those who carry out terror attacks and those who finance and manage [them].” If convicted, Al-Arian and the other men could receive life sentences.

Receiving less than a life sentence this week was al-Qa'ida operative Mounir el Motassadeq, was sentenced to Germany’s maximum 15-year incarceration this week after being convicted of over 3,000 counts of accessory to murder for his role in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. El Motassadeq, financed the hijackers as they waited and trained in their Hamburg-based al-Qa'ida cell. “We will dance on their graves,” were the words of el Motassadeq in reference to the 9/11 victims. Ah, 15 years – isn’t that special! He probably would have gotten released on his own recognizance if he had been tried in France.