Steve Farrell
Thursday, Feb. 13, 2003

The United States ought to nip Saddam Hussein in the bud, right now – end of debate.

With these provisos:

• Our intent is a swift, crippling, absolute victory.

• The United States fights its own battles – with the aid, at the most, of a temporary alliance of a few important friends (e.g., we need Turkish airfields; we ought to arm Iraqi rebels).

• We resolve, here and now, to keep the hypocritical, terrorist-sponsoring United Nations out of our war councils and its occupying forces out of Iraq.

• After the war, we employ diplomacy, free trade and short-term relief efforts to set Iraq on a course toward self-sufficiency and friendly relations with the United States.

• We stop framing the rationale for war in terms of Iraqi violations of Security Council resolutions (decrees) and stick to the only issue that legitimately is ours – the security interests of the United States of America and the offensive measures of Iraq to undermine our security.

Translation: The United States needs to say "Yes to Victory" and "No to the anti-American United Nations."

It’s true; an armed Saddam Hussein, linked to terrorists, poses a grave danger to the United States – but let’s not overlook other troubling issues.

• There are some who look upon war with Iraq, and most wars, as a godsend to empower the United Nations.

• The U.N.’s pro-liberty record is appalling, to say the least.

• The debate at the U.N. as to the justness of our cause has created a grand opportunity for the world’s worst enemies of freedom to have a public forum to humiliate the United States and inflame international sentiment against us.

Stick to an American Agenda

Let’s insure that our agenda is an American one.

President George Herbert Walker Bush Sr. said in 1991:

"The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a new world order – can emerge." Later on, the president detailed what he meant: "We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders."

That slip of the tongue of a liberal Republican was revealing and disturbing. The founders of the U.N. were largely communists, the U.N.’s chief architect and first secretary general, Alger Hiss, a Soviet spy and the U.N.’s political structure and objectives at odds with the U.S. Constitution and the Judeo-Christian ethic. (See author's "The Un-American United Nations.")

And let’s not forget this: The constitutional job of the commander in chief is to lead the United States, not the United Nations, to victory.

The conservative base of President Bush Sr.’s party was shocked and outraged. Some administration officials later admitted they wished he had never said it. In a few months, the president dropped the subject until his term expired.

President Bush II needs to learn the lesson now that his father learned too late: This war needs to have one purpose and one purpose alone – protect the United States.

Yes, the administration’s consistent rhetoric about going it alone, about the U.N. becoming irrelevant, reflects a high learning curve – but then again, maybe not. This same administration lobbies (behind the scenes at the U.N.) more aggressively than any prior U.S. administration.

And for what? Promoting U.N. resolutions with more bite than bark. The president’s address to the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002, is a case in point. Said he:

"The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

"The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime."

Maybe this writer has a vivid imagination, but what he hears is one voice working to gain the support of American conservatives, who fear and despise the U.N., and another voice placating internationalists, who love the U.N.

If the internationalist dream of a new world order under the United Nations is still part of the agenda for war in Iraq – the time to drop it is now.

Contact Steve at stiffrightjab@yahoo.com.

Missed a column? Visit Steve's archives.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
George W. Bush
Saddam Hussein/Iraq
United Nations

Editor's note:
Learn the leadership secrets of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld