Sergio Vieira de Mello was the most prominent UN official involved in the liberation of East Timor.
Interesting... I did not know that.. And it could constitute an alternative reason the UN headquarters were targeted.
What the article that Scott posted failed to do was outline a specific reason the UN was targeted, aside from "desperation"..
I don't believe that terrrorist commit such attacks without specific rationales for doing so. They commit these attacks against specific targets in order to create a specific result. Thus, we have to figure out what their strategy is...
Do they fear that the UN presence was gaining legitimacy amongst the Iraqi people (given the seeming anger by them as a response to this attack)??
Some would opine that this is intention... To scare off the UN from increasing its activities and undermining the credibility of the insurgency against Coalition forces.
Or was it an attempt to scare off the UN in order to leave Iraq strictly within US hands, thus easing the insurgents ability to generate anti-American feelings?
Both scenarios could be at work here, as both ends would benefit the insurgents, while compounding the difficulties of US efforts to rebuild Iraq. They longer that takes, the more frustration is generated amongst the Iraqis and the more inclined they are to resent the American/Coalition presence.
Personally, I welcome the UN presence, but only so long as they don't attempt to play politics with Iraq's oil contracts by holding on relief efforts as they claimed they would provide. There should be no expectation of a "quid pro quo" involved when it comes to deciding to send UN member troops to Iraq. They should send them, ingratiate themselves to the Iraqi ruling counsel, and take what is given them..
But members such as France, Germany, and Russia seem to be willing to play such politics, hoping to force the new Iraqi government to honor the obligations of Saddam's regime.
Hawk |
