Then, we are already in violation, since we attacked Yugoslavia without any form of UN approval. Attacking Iraq already has a vague UN endorsement, theoretically, we are much better off now than when we attacked Yugoslavia. Practically, Clinton knew that he couldn't get the UN support, so he acted by bypassing the UN, and he acted quickly. The current administration has made number of blunders in dealing with the UN, and is dragging this process out for way too long.
All of the above is true, but the toothpaste cannot be put back in the tube now. I think Bush would do well to work towards gaining maximum benefit from the current situation and declare a victory, short of an attack on the country. There is so much more he could demand in exchange for peace, that would be short of regime change, but could sow the seeds of real change from within Iraq.
The appearance is worse compared to Yugoslavia action, even though the facts are better.
Maybe...I know Kosovo was an active, expanding conflict, with real casualties on live TV. In Serbia, we did not go to change regime. Milosevic was voted out by his own people. We did not commit 200K+ troops, the risk was far lower, and at least we had the entire support of Nato. Iraq is a presumed, latent threat. Bush has been unable to convince even Saddam's neighbors of this fact.
Al |
