B Nice war - here's the bill

Yes, in the most obvious and extreme of cases, the UN can be dragged kicking
and screaming into doing the right thing, but only if the US pays for it.

Steve Swartz


"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:24:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
I'd figure another six months. Go for an autumn invasion with full UN
support and more planning. The UN weapons inspectors get the runaround,
Hussein continues to rattle his sabre, the French case for delay is
aired and disproven.

The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.

Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.

Might have worked again in 2003.

One problem is, the US has locked itself into a retrospective
Francophobia. The French will go with their perceived interests... one
tactic of diplomacy is to find a way to align that with what you want to
do. Recall, after all, they had troops on the ground fighting alongside
in 1991.

I do not consider that a problem, more like an awakening. France has
been an enemy of the US for many years now. The fact that this is now
"out in the open" should clarify our foreign policy in relation to
France.

So the US _resented_ having French troops guard its left flank in 1991?
Why didn't it tell the French to go copulate with themselves and provide
their own flank security?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 02:12:50 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Instead of mentioning the wonderful things the UN did 30 to 50 years
ago, how about mentioning what really cool things they've done *lately*
to balance out the stupid things, like the mockery they've made of the
Human Rights Commission? Or the disaster that was the "oil for food"
program?"

Err, you may want check what I wrote. Small pox was only eradicated in
the last 20 years (which is why I have my scar from the shot),

You might want to check some dates. Smallpox was "declared eradicated"
in 1980, after the last naturally-occurring case in 1977, and the
program was started in 1967 (with most of the work being done in the
first four or five years).

polio is in the process *now*,

....as it has been since the 1950s. They're starting a big push, but
it's nowhere near the task smallpox was.

UNICEF is still up and running last time I checked.

Yep. That program that was started a couple of generation ago is still
more or less in place.

Kofi Annan's vocal support of Saddam Hussein was a severe black mark
for the UN, and it's shocking that more people don't know anout
that...

Splutter! What? I've never heard Kofi saying anything stronger than
"Iraq must comply" in favour of the old regime. Cite please (and
since the UN publishes almost all it's press conferences you should
be able to provide a URL).

"I can do business with Saddam Hussein" was one of his most famous
quotes, from the 1998 meeting when Annan met with Hussein to try and get
inspections back on track. Five years later, they still weren't. That
pretty much tells you what sort of business that was.

Annan made a few aggressive noises, and has always had the threat
hanging, but has always resisted anything other than bureaucratic moves.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Peter Kemp wrote:

Because he was about to be freed of UN restriction.

No, he wasn't. The US had explicitly said (and the UK too IIRC) that
they would veto any attempt to lift sanctions until Iraq was given a
clean bill of health by UNMOVIC.

I think he was, either by official UN lifting of sanctions, or by
increasingly
ignoring them by more and more parties.

Hard to Ignore a 5"54 accross the bow.

France and Russia, and to lesser degree Germany I believe, were
increasingly
pushing to remove them [sanctions] and move on.


Of course thay had contracts to exploit



If it weren't for US vetos, the UN would probably have voted a
resolution
calling for the "disbandment" of the Israeli state!

Care to say who in the UN would enforce that? I would guess a good part of
euorpe would be in range of Isreali missles.

Certainly. I didn't mean an actual UNSCR calling for the extinction of
Israel, merely
an examply of what they would try if they could...and they might even get
significantly
close to a majority vote on it [if it were possible]!

Is anti Semitism still rampant in Europe?

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:04:57 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

Yes, in the most obvious and extreme of cases, the UN can be dragged kicking
and screaming into doing the right thing, but only if the US pays for it.

IIRC the Japanese and the various Arab nations paid for the bulk of
DESERT STORM.

Peter Kemp

Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:04:57 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

Yes, in the most obvious and extreme of cases, the UN can be dragged kicking
and screaming into doing the right thing, but only if the US pays for it.

IIRC the Japanese and the various Arab nations paid for the bulk of
DESERT STORM.

Not sure about that. There was a significant amount of "barter" type
payment (for example, the Japanese sent beaucoup light pickups, vans,
forklifts, and small busses that were used by various coalition
units), and IIRC the Saudis picked up the tab for a lot of the fuel
costs, temporary billeting, and a part of the rations (but I
understand that a lot of this was at marked up prices, like the air
raid siren one unit I knew of procured for use in Khobar Towers, and
the Saudi middlemen took a hefty cut...). When all is said and done, I
would be surprised if the bulk of each nation's costs were not borne
by that respective nation, with the exceptions of Syria and Egypt,
which IIRC did have their tabs picked up by the Saudis. Trying to
determine exactly how much of the total tab was in the end picked up
by "others" would likely be an accounting nightmare worthy of
Enron-class "adjustments".

Brooks


Peter Kemp

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.

Might have worked again in 2003.

You might note that the *last* time, Iraq actually had to invade another
country and threaten a couple more to get the UN to *allow* other
countries to respond...

Sounds about right, unless you want UN-backed troops invading any
country who annoys enough of the Security Council and doesn't get a
veto...

The UN explicitly does not do "internal affairs". (Iraq was about
enforcing previous resolutions incurred over Kuwait) and in general this
is a Good Thing - as I'm sure the US would agree at the first
intervention it didn't like the tenor of.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:16:26 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:24:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
I'd figure another six months. Go for an autumn invasion with full UN
support and more planning. The UN weapons inspectors get the runaround,
Hussein continues to rattle his sabre, the French case for delay is
aired and disproven.

The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.

Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.

Might have worked again in 2003.

One problem is, the US has locked itself into a retrospective
Francophobia. The French will go with their perceived interests... one
tactic of diplomacy is to find a way to align that with what you want to
do. Recall, after all, they had troops on the ground fighting alongside
in 1991.

I do not consider that a problem, more like an awakening. France has
been an enemy of the US for many years now. The fact that this is now
"out in the open" should clarify our foreign policy in relation to
France.

So the US _resented_ having French troops guard its left flank in 1991?
Why didn't it tell the French to go copulate with themselves and provide
their own flank security?

The French were there in 91 because it would have been political
suicide NOT to be there. They provided little to nothing in what was a
US show (with a significant assist from the Brits). The French were in
a non-combat area safely away from the active fronts.

As for the UN, it is a bad joke. If the UN had done the right thing
and backed Operation Iraqi Freedom, it would have looked the same, the
US and Brits doing the fighting.

France is an enemy nation.

Al Minyard

In message , Kevin
Brooks writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.

US troops were enroute and on the ground before the UN took any form
of "action".

Resolution 660 was passed on August 2 1990, demanding an immediate Iraqi
withdrawal. Resolution 661, imposing a trade and financial embargo in
Iraq, passed on 6th August.

The US announced the imminent arrival of leading elements of the 82nd
Airborne in Saudi Arabia on the 8th August.

Might have worked again in 2003.

Why? It sure as hell had NOT worked between 1991 and 2003 (or do you
think the multitude of resolutions that were not backed up due to foot
dragging actually *meant* anything?), so why you think it would have
enjoyed a miraculous conversion to being an effective organization in
03 is beyond me.

If driving to Baghdad was such a good idea in 1991, why was it not done?

(With hindsight, 1998 was perhaps the best time for such action)

So the US _resented_ having French troops guard its left flank in 1991?
Why didn't it tell the French to go copulate with themselves and provide
their own flank security?

LOL! You must have missed the last-minute cringing of the French
leadership; you know, when they started waffling about actually going
into combat, requiring your then-PM and our then-President to get on
the phone to try to stiffen French resolve? And if you really think
the 6th LAD's "flank protection" role was that important, much less
critical, then I have overestimated your tactical/operational insight,
Paul. The fact is that the French were shuffled off to that flank
because we could not count on them, and we then backed them up with a
brigade of the 82nd Abn Div in case they pulled another last minute
"we have decided that we should give Hussein more time" crap.

Which doesn't answer the question - if they were so much trouble, why
bother? Tell them that they can go back to France and the Coalition will
get the job done without them.

Sounds like there was a perceived need to keep the French on-side.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , Kevin
Brooks writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.

US troops were enroute and on the ground before the UN took any form
of "action".

Resolution 660 was passed on August 2 1990, demanding an immediate Iraqi
withdrawal. Resolution 661, imposing a trade and financial embargo in
Iraq, passed on 6th August.

You call that "action"? How many resolutions did the UN subsequently
pass over the next twelve years in regards to Iraq, and what was the
sum result of all of that "action"? How many times has the UN passed
its resolutions only to see no real "action" to enforce them?


The US announced the imminent arrival of leading elements of the 82nd
Airborne in Saudi Arabia on the 8th August.

Actually, my source (Brasseys) indicates 7 August, but whatever--if
they were "immenent" even on 8 August, it is obvious that movement
began even earlier than 6 August, right? And the UN did not declare
Saddam's "annexation" invalid until 9 August.


Might have worked again in 2003.

Why? It sure as hell had NOT worked between 1991 and 2003 (or do you
think the multitude of resolutions that were not backed up due to foot
dragging actually *meant* anything?), so why you think it would have
enjoyed a miraculous conversion to being an effective organization in
03 is beyond me.

If driving to Baghdad was such a good idea in 1991, why was it not done?

It wasn't a good idea in 91. METT-T.


(With hindsight, 1998 was perhaps the best time for such action)

By then we had a severe leadership problem--the only actions that were
undertaken were those that afforded zero-percent chance of friendly
casualties, and which afforded maximum *appearance* of "doing
something" (witness the laughable SLCM attacks against OBL in
Afghanistan and against that asprin factory in Sudan). It was not a
particularly proud period of time for a lot of us who were serving.


So the US _resented_ having French troops guard its left flank in 1991?
Why didn't it tell the French to go copulate with themselves and provide
their own flank security?

LOL! You must have missed the last-minute cringing of the French
leadership; you know, when they started waffling about actually going
into combat, requiring your then-PM and our then-President to get on
the phone to try to stiffen French resolve? And if you really think
the 6th LAD's "flank protection" role was that important, much less
critical, then I have overestimated your tactical/operational insight,
Paul. The fact is that the French were shuffled off to that flank
because we could not count on them, and we then backed them up with a
brigade of the 82nd Abn Div in case they pulled another last minute
"we have decided that we should give Hussein more time" crap.

Which doesn't answer the question - if they were so much trouble, why
bother? Tell them that they can go back to France and the Coalition will
get the job done without them.

Political appearances, apparently. In hindsight, we probably should
have told them to shove off.


Sounds like there was a perceived need to keep the French on-side.

But the fact is that the French were not exactly a key part of ODS,
largely due to their own foot dragging. No offense intended against
the French troops who were there--an old friend of mine found himself
supporting that 82nd ABN DIV element, and he was rather impressed with
them, especially their Foreign Legion troops. But their national
leadership sent them there, and then waffled--little wonder they were
given a mission of dubious, at best, value, and then had US troops
trailing along behind even then.

Brooks

In message , Kevin
Brooks writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Resolution 660 was passed on August 2 1990, demanding an immediate Iraqi
withdrawal. Resolution 661, imposing a trade and financial embargo in
Iraq, passed on 6th August.

You call that "action"?

They were used to cover US actions thereafter.

The UN, lacking troops, can't put boots on the ground.

How many resolutions did the UN subsequently
pass over the next twelve years in regards to Iraq, and what was the
sum result of all of that "action"?

Well, they were used to justify an invasion of Iraq in 2003.

How many times has the UN passed
its resolutions only to see no real "action" to enforce them?

Frequently. That's the nature of the beast, and why it's acceptable.
(Including to the US).

The US announced the imminent arrival of leading elements of the 82nd
Airborne in Saudi Arabia on the 8th August.

Actually, my source (Brasseys) indicates 7 August, but whatever--if
they were "immenent" even on 8 August, it is obvious that movement
began even earlier than 6 August, right?

Airlift, and this is first arrivals.

And the UN did not declare
Saddam's "annexation" invalid until 9 August.

They demanded Iraqi withdrawal a week before that.

If driving to Baghdad was such a good idea in 1991, why was it not done?

It wasn't a good idea in 91. METT-T.

We agree, but many others do not.

(With hindsight, 1998 was perhaps the best time for such action)

By then we had a severe leadership problem--the only actions that were
undertaken were those that afforded zero-percent chance of friendly
casualties, and which afforded maximum *appearance* of "doing
something" (witness the laughable SLCM attacks against OBL in
Afghanistan and against that asprin factory in Sudan). It was not a
particularly proud period of time for a lot of us who were serving.

I can't help wondering how much of it is chicken-and-egg. Clinton was
not a great friend of the military; but the military gave the impression
of being actively hostile to their commander at the same time. (Or at
least the members posting to Usenet, writing to Proceedings and AFJI,
and so on) This tends to lead to paralysis.

If he felt that he couldn't trust his military in any action that might
involve cost, he'd opt for safe standoff tactics. (What would the
reaction be to "Failed Raid Costs US Troops Their Lives" if Clinton had
used manned platforms or ground forces to go after bin-Laden? Would you
have respected him for using the best tool for the job, or despised him
for considering his troops expendable assets to be spent for political
gain? I'm thinking Desert One as an example here)

Which doesn't answer the question - if they were so much trouble, why
bother? Tell them that they can go back to France and the Coalition will
get the job done without them.

Political appearances, apparently. In hindsight, we probably should
have told them to shove off.

So why were political appearances so important?

Sounds like there was a perceived need to keep the French on-side.

But the fact is that the French were not exactly a key part of ODS,

Never said they were. (They were more use than many realise in OIF too,
mind you; French ships were among those covering the several risky
chokepoints on the way to the top of the Persian Gulf, as shipping laden
with military supplies trudged to their destinations. Not a point that
got much publicity then or notice now.)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk