U.S. should disregard the failed U.N.
In recent days there have been reports and statements made by government officials hinting toward a return to the United Nations once the war in Iraq is concluded with an American-led coalition victory. Revisiting the United Nations to seek out a post-war resolution would prove to be counterproductive.
The reasons for going to war were clear: to disarm a potentially hot and hostile country, to relieve the Iraqi people from a brutal regime, to take the next step in fighting terrorism, and finally to attempt to change the political climate of the Middle East. There were countries, such as Great Britain, Australia, Spain, Kuwait, and others that shared America's view. France and Russia, most notably, did not. It was apparent that France and Russia wanted no hand in effectively confronting Saddam Hussein; they were willing, in traditional European fashion, to appease a vicious tyrant. The United States and its allies are in the process of removing Saddam Hussein from power and disarming Iraq.
Why should France and Russia have any influence in shaping a future government that comes from a U.S.-led operation? Why should said nations have a part in molding a society that they did not help liberate? Why shouldn't the U.S. and Britain rebuild a country on their terms consistent with their vision of a future Middle East? After all, The United States has a dramatically different vision for the future than, let's say, Russia. Russia has been financially backing the Iranian nuclear reactor development program, essentially providing one of the biggest supporters, both ideologically and financially, of international and regional terrorism with the ability to create nuclear weapons. By giving Iran a means of acquiring a nuclear arsenal, Russia has made a non-verbal statement: we will support any state's ambitions for a price. With such an approach to the dangers in the Middle East, why should Russia have a role in formulating a government in the region?
French President Jacques Chirac has already stated that he would oppose any rebuilding of Iraq with the U.S. playing a dominant role, which sets up a fierce diplomatic war. The damage of such a political battle, which will not end in the United States' favor, could be irreversible. The United States has a chance now to prove that it is capable of building a free nation in a more hostile climate than Japan or post-war Europe. This precious opportunity to reshape the political landscape of the Middle East should not be hijacked by the French and their sympathizers. A country that has stopped at nothing to undermine America's legitimacy should not compromise U.S. interests and goals. Is that the kind of partner the U.S. needs at such a critical juncture? The certain deadlock that will result if the Iraqi question returns for a second round would draw time and focus away from the objective, to build a new, peaceful, democratic Iraq. Iraq has the wealth and the U.S. and its allies have the resources to build a new Iraq successfully, it does not need the United Nations' support. The U.S. and its coalition should focus its energy and resources on rebuilding Iraq properly, not on fighting a political war with the French and the Russians in the United Nations.
Those opposed to the war in Iraq continuously spoke of how America will
face devastating consequences. I say, let those that chose to oppose the
war effort also suffer the consequences of their decision. They should
not have an economic gain from the rebuilding process nor should they
be allowed to influence the political sphere. The United Nations should
help on the humanitarian front, not the political. The United Nations
was seen as the impotent, partial organization that it is; returning to
it would only restore legitimacy to an organization that has not proven
to be credible.