Revolutionary Moderation

Once more, with feeling



I was half-tempted to delete my previous, tepid post responding to the US request that the UN join them in occupying Iraq, and replace it with this post. But I'll let my record of "me-again" punditry stand as a reminder not to post when work is too crazy.



But in the meantime, Jason Vest's excellent essay actually provides something new and thoughtful to the discussion. To wit, more and better reasons for the UN to avoid getting involved in this particular morass, as much as it seems to be the humane thing to do:

...in characteristic fashion, [the Bush administration] is defaulting to its arrogance-as-usual mode despite its ever-mounting problems. While this wrong-headed chutzpah would be cause enough for the UN to turn its back on the administration, there are two more important reasons not to accede to its ill-conceived terms.



The first is fairly obvious. Granting a patina of respectability and an infusion of deferential assistance to an occupier that doesn't know what it is doing in Iraq is only likely to make matters worse. Indeed, if the Pentagon's track record thus far is used as a barometer, the U.S. has done little to merit the primacy it so arrogantly insists upon.



...



[And the second reason is that] Accepting the US draft proposal essentially rewards the temerity of neoconservatives whose ambition is to re-fashion the United Nations to suit their imperial needs.

Okay, now I get to repeat myself: enabling.



Read the whole thing, particularly if you happen to be your country's representative on the Security Council.



Update: for more on the arrogance-as-usual mode, this essay puts it nicely in perspective. And the most accurate view, as always, can be found here.