Meanwhile, back at the UN. From NRO.
October 31, 2002, 11:10 a.m.
Iraq Watch
What's up with the Security Council?
By Ross Douthat
What's holding up the passage of a Security Council resolution on Iraq? The answer, today's New York Times reports, is as simple as two words: "material breach." Apparently, the United States and Britain want the proposed resolution to say that Iraq "is still, and has been for a number of years, in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions." While the other Security Council members do not officially disagree with this characterization of Iraq's behavior ? how could they? ? they fear the consequences of putting it in writing, "on the ground that if Iraq is already in breach of past resolutions, any nation on the council is empowered under the United Nations charter to take action, including military force, at any time to enforce compliance." In other words, we could send in the Marines any old time, without Security Council authorization ? which is exactly the situation that "our trusted allies" France and Russia want to avoid.
Today's Washington Post offers a generally similar analysis, except that it locates the carte blanche for American military ? and the Franco-Russian anxiety over the same ? in a different sentence, and in six words instead of two. According to the Post, the critical sentence currently reads "'failure by Iraq to comply with, and cooperate fully with the implementation of this resolution shall constitute a . . . material breach' of its international obligations." The French want to insert the phrase "when established by the Security Council" after the words "the implementation of this resolution," thus placing the burden on the United Nations to determine when and how to enforce Iraqi compliance. The current version, by contrast, "doesn't say how the determination would be made or who would make it . . . France, along with Russia and China, suspects the Americans want to reserve the decision for themselves, all the better to launch a military attack."
Wherever the bone of contention lies, both papers agree that there is rising optimism that a settlement will be reached soon. The Times notes that there have been no "threats from France, Russia or China to use their veto or moves to confront Washington with competing resolutions." And the Post quotes British Foreign Minister Jack Straw and Colin Powell offering favorable prognoses. Said Straw, "There has genuinely been a meeting of the minds . . . I think the final outcome will be a good one." Powell, meanwhile, told reporters that "with a little more hard work on the part of all concerned, we can accommodate the interests of our friends without in any way . . . handcuffing the United States."
But what about the war itself, which will suddenly loom closer once any Security Council resolution is passed? In an alarmist but thought-provoking article, the Post explores the possibility of urban warfare in Iraq, and concludes that it may well prove to be a "primordial conflict" ? a phrase lifted directly from Army doctrine, apparently. According to the story, "recent experimentation by the Marine Corps has shown that battlefield casualties exceed 30 percent in simulated urban operations involving troops who receive, on average, only about two weeks of urban combat training per year." This is, of course, something that Saddam Hussein knows all too well, and "senior Iraqi officials have already said they would try to lure U.S. forces into Baghdad, acknowledging that the Persian Gulf War in 1991 taught them the folly of fighting in the desert against superior American armor and air power. Bluffing or not, the Iraqis understand that the U.S. military's overwhelming technological advantages are to some extent nullified in cities, where buildings shelter enemy forces from reconnaissance aircraft and satellites and the presence of civilians makes the use of even the smartest bombs infinitely more difficult."
The hope, the Post notes, is that the Iraqi military and people would turn on Saddam Hussein, making such a messy engagement unnecessary. But while "military analysts inside and outside the Pentagon do not think that Iraq's military can or will put up much of a fight . . . even a limited number of engagements, most likely against Hussein's Special Republican Guard, could be nasty affairs."
Do Americans, long used to wars fought largely from the comparative safety of the skies, have the stomach for such a brutal fight? If the Security Council can untangle itself from its thicket of language disputes, we may soon find out.
? Ross Douthat is an editorial analyst for The Atlantic Monthly. |
