What needs to be done that the UN can do?

It appears that President Bush will return to the United Nations to solicit assistance with the situation in Iraq. What, exactly, he will request and what, exactly, other countries will provide is the stuff of great politics. But as for JINSA, we will ask our usual, boring question. “What is it that the U.S., the coalition, the Iraqi people and the international community as represented in this case by the UN need to have done?” And, “What resources are necessary to do it?”

It appears that President Bush will return to the United Nations to solicit assistance with the situation in Iraq. What, exactly, he will request and what, exactly, other countries will provide is the stuff of great politics. But as for JINSA, we will ask our usual, boring question. “What is it that the U.S., the coalition, the Iraqi people and the international community as represented in this case by the UN need to have done?” And, “What resources are necessary to do it?”

Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia have been permitting and/or orchestrating the infiltration of large numbers of terrorists and political agitators into Iraq. Coalition forces have arrested hundreds of “foreigners,” and today, Iraqi police arrested 12 Iranian agents operating in Baghdad. The large-scale terrorism, the Jordanian Embassy, the UN HQ and the mosque in Najjaf all appear to be the work of coalitions of non-Iraqis plus Ba’athists. Smaller scale damage, e.g., sabotage against electric power, water and oil production facilities, makes it impossible to secure services for the people, adding to the unrest.

The first priority, then, is the security infrastructure, meaning both the borders and the interior of the country. (Without the first, the second is a losing proposition; as fast as we can build, they can destroy.) This means increased military operations inside the country as well as additional policing. It may mean military action against the infiltrators, and also against their staging bases outside of Iraq. This needs to be done.

According to news sources, the U.S. plans to form a 40,000-man Iraqi army by 2006, beginning with a light infantry division of about 12,000 soldiers. The first battalions of the Iraqi army as well as three battalions of the new Civil Defense Force are currently undergoing training. Special Ops units of more than 100 soldiers are also being trained. The coalition also hopes to deploy 65,000 to 75,000 fully trained Iraqi police by the end of 2004. “We should find ways quickly to give Iraq and Iraqis more responsibility for security, and indeed that is exactly what we are doing,” Ambassador Bremer told a news conference. This needs to be done.

Is the UN prepared to do either job, and can it do either better than the U.S.-led coalition? Not likely. So what job needs to be done that the UN can do?

The UN can offer legitimacy to the coalition and announce that it will work with, not around, the coalition to ensure humanitarian assistance for the people. It can encourage member countries to supply both police and fighters to the coalition. It can supply funds to the forces on the line and to the new Iraqi government. It can stop holding itself out as an alternative to the coalition in matters of security when, in fact, it is not one.

We suspect that what France, Germany and Russia had in mind was somewhat different – saying, “I told you so,” or perhaps restructuring political power in Baghdad and getting their companies in line for reconstruction contracts. You know, “doing something” and thereby benefiting. It would be a huge mistake to substitute doing anything for doing what needs to be done. And a bigger mistake to do it through the UN.