Friends of the Devil

The UNSC or “Why I Blame France”:

March 11, 2003, Jaques Chirac announced his ultimatum to the United States: France, one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, would use its veto power to oppose any UN resolution that led to war against Saddam Hussein. Russia immediately followed suit.

And the UN suddenly became irrelevant…

[**one part in a series of entries highlighting actions and attitudes that hurt America in the conflict against Islamic terrorists**]

Bush and Blair had requested a resolution laying out a March 17th deadline for Saddam to comply. In his last act of international defiance, Saddam remained firm, empowered by the threat of veto and convinced that the United States could not invade without authorization. On the deadline, he was given 48 hours to leave the country. After FINALLY indicating that he was willing to negotiate and cooperate, the US began its invasion on March 19th with a fierce and massive bombing raid on the suspected whereabouts of the Iraqi president. Thus the war began.

My argument here is that if our European 'allies' had done their duty, this war would have been avoided and every death in Iraq in the past two and a half years can be layed, partially at least, at their feet. Their duty was to support and enforce the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire and 12 years of resolutions chock full of specific demands and accusations. The most recent pre-war resolution, #1441 was passed a few months earlier. 1441 refered to a previous resolution indicating that the Gulf War post-war agreements should be enforced by all means necessary and 1441 promised "severe consequences" for non-compliance. It was passed unanimously, 15 - 0.

After it became obvious that Saddam Hussein was interfering in the weapons inspection process (strange behavior for a regime with no wmds), the US then went to cash 1441 in.

Imagine if the opposing members of the UNSC, led by France and Russia (the councils two biggest financial partners of the Hussein regime) had indeed voted unamiously to enforce 1441 and declare Saddams regime over. If each nation had stood side by side with the US and Britain and declared that they were each willing to commit thousands of troops, unstoppable air power and the financial might of the western world to destroy Saddams military and end his bloody regime...do you think there would have been any chance at all that this war would have ever taken place? That Saddam had the conviction to defy the aggression of the 'entire world'? The insurgency certainly would have been almost all domestic hardcore Saddam loyalists and practically non-existent. Force (or the mere threat of) would have ultimately reigned in the peace.

But that wasn't to happen.

The American left loves to tout the picture of Don Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, but there is little concern that Jaques Chirac and Saddam had a close relationship starting in 1976 when Jaques was yet a tadpole in the French government.

The American left loves to point out that at one time the US supported Saddam during the Iraq-Iran War and even provided him with weaponry and support. But they don't mention that France provided over 20 billion dollars in weapons to the Iraqi government, second only to Russia, and sold Saddam over 40% of his imported weapons. The US? Less than 2%. Of all the countries who contributed, only Denmark gave less.

France aided and supported Saddams 1981 attempt to build nuclear reactors in Iraq. The Isrealis put an abrupt stop to that.

And we won't even get into the UN Oil-For-Food scandal, which elevates the moral corruption of the war opposers from merely protecting political interests to suddenly covering-up international crimes to the tune of billions!

George W. Bush dared the UN to be relevant, to not suffer the same fate as the disastrous League of Nations, another post-war, feel-good bureacracy that touted 'never again' to war. And it ultimately led to the deaths of 60 million people.

So why the opposition, defying their own demands and declarations? Well, one theory is that after centuries of waging war, the Europeans have become chronic pacifists. Some countries like Japan and Germany are compensating for their 20th century aggressions. And some countries like Russia and China are quietly hoping for a bogged down and weakened United States while they build their economies and their militariy posturing. And our buddies in Paris? Apparently, they are one of a few nations who can't learn from history. Their lesson?

Appeasement never works.

Like I said, imagine. Imagine looking back upon the great historical achievement of the global community coming together and usng it's might to depose a brutal tyrant. Imagine the blow to Islamic terror. Imagine the long term impact among other hostile countries, especially in the Mid East. Do you think there would be the problems today with Iran and its nuclear ambitions if the Europeans had demonstrated in 2003 that they weren't going to tolerate any crap? That the UN was more than just a mouthpiece, capable only of meetings and committees and resolutions and trying to defuse conflicts with pens while the aggressors built arsenals?

Thanks to nations like Great Britain and Australia, there are still beacons of courage in the international community, entities of moral clarity that don't have to wring their hands in frustration in trying to decide what is right and what is nothing. And there are signs that the political tide may be turning. The American left love to display polls showing low support for President Bush, yet the fact that Chirac is vastly less popular in France is almost hidden from us. Anti-US incumbent Gerhard Schroeder of Germany is about to suffer a humiliating defeat to a pro-US candidate and the newly elected pacifist government in Spain has seemed to have already worn out it's welcome.

These countries may be our allies and we may have to rely on them, but they have shown their stripes and demonstrated their dependability.

The next time you go rah-rah for an anti-US, anti-war government in Europe, ask yourself this: why is it that the very countries you worship for their political stances also seem to be the least of concern for Al Queda?

Isn't there something fundamentally wrong in that?

The OttO Show

Posted by The OttO Show at August 25, 2005 4:27 AM