They could have asked anything of us on Sept 12, 2001. They said "go shopping". If they'd taken all the 'no longer young' who asked, they'd have had peacekeepers and nationbuilders galore (and I'd be blogging from Afghanistan or Iraq).
How can we trust them, if they won't trust us?

I think they're afraid to ask because they largely believe the hype: we're weak, decadent, spoiled, blah bling blah.

One of the first things I asked after 911 was: what can I do? Being told to go shopping absolutely enraged me. I think there's a lot of young people with tremendous energy who want to contribute.

When I first saw this topic title, I thought it was about Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness.

"Mistah Bush-- he dead."

I agree that Bush has done a bad job of selling the war, and I also agree that many Americans were begging for the opportunity to make sacrifices, but the opportunity never came.

However, I do wonder whether the majority of Americans were willing to make sacrifices. The anti-American Vietnam left wasn't, and they are very powerful and very vocal. They aren't going away, either. They'll still faint at the first sight of blood, and since most Americans aren't terribly knowledable about national security issues, that sort of thing would take its toll no matter what Bush did.

Assume we got support of the UN back in March. There are a great many on the left who would have accused of of "hijacking an international body", blackmail, extortion, etc. They would have called UN support a "fig leaf". And blame for any and all failures in Iraq would have fallen squarely on the United States regardless. The idea that the UN will or could have bound up our internal divisions does not withstand thirty seconds of scrutiny.

I'm just still worn out that after the stuff I wrote, in both comments and in a post on my 'blog, about why I believed being selective about getting help from other countries would be more productive, the Bush administration is going to do this.

I thought I was making sense. I wasn't saying what I did to "defend" Bush, but because I was convinced it was the right thing to do.

Maybe I just need a vacation or something. I dunno.

You are starting to see a lot of this from conservative commentators looking for excuses for George Bush. Maybe that's what the supporters of politicians who have difficulty explaining what they are trying to do see as part of their job description. Maybe they take their cues from a White House that may make mistakes but never, ever admits making mistakes -- when things go wrong, therefore, it must be someone else's fault.

But I'm not so concerned about that. What matters is whether or not policy on the Iraqi problem in a direction that promises success. With respect to the UN, I think the administration is moving in the right direction, albeit months later than it should have and without much clarity about what it wants from other UN countries or what it is willing to give up. In fairness, however, the administration is not wrong to ask what exactly the UN wants from the increased authority we would give it in Iraq; it is not wrong to wonder if France and Germany are not using the issue of a new UN mandate as a means of putting off a deployment of their troops that would be unpopular at home; and it is not wrong to wonder if the infusion of lower quality troops from some UN countries wouldn't make matters worse.

I thought it was worth finding out if our friends at the UN were speaking about Iraq in good faith some time ago, but the possibility does exist that they are not, and are no more serious about collective security than they were last spring.

The only plausible reason for the Bush Administration to seek U.N. involvement at this point is to seek international legitimacy, vis a vis our allies, the domestic audience and the Iraqis themselves. In other words, the motivation can only be political, and not military or budgetary. It can't possibly be to relieve the burden on our troops or pocketbook, given the numbers involved and the trade-offs to be France, Russia, Germany, etc.

It is a huge mistake. Bush was foolish to get duped into this by Colin Powell, who probably got duped into it (again) by the French.

Our "allies" - the French in particular - will ensure that this initiative fails. They are probably backtracking as we speak (blog?) on assurances given to Powell, who would not have had Bush formalize the approach to the extent he has without basic agreed ground rules.

The French, in particular, will undermine us. They want us to fail. They want to prove their righteousness and will rub it in as much as they can. Chirac's rhetoric in Paris is all about "restoring sovereignty of Iraq to the Iraqi people as soon as possible" as though that were not U.S. policy as well, which presumably, for the French, is about control of oil and imperial conquest. They will score points off us and seek to embarrass the U.S. administration. The French are not evil, but they are arrogant, opportunistic and deluded. By virtue of their influence and position on the U.N. Security Council, they have become the single greatest obstacle to collective security within the Western World.

I don't buy the argument that Bush is stalling for time and catering to his foreign and domestic opponents without an intent to follow through. He has more to lose than to gain from the virtually inevitable failure of the initiative. It will make the administration look desperate and short on solutions.

For those reasons alone and even assuming that an internationalization of Iraqi reconstruction through the U.N. were desirable (a highly questionable proposition in itself), this latest move is a huge mistake.

Gabriel's comment sort of makes me wonder what's in the WMD dossier we're compiling.

Brothers Judd had a different twist on this:

"The Left has had a field day trying to pick apart the Administration's rationale for war, so it seems like turnabout is only fair play. The most widely recognized problem with ignoring the UN and going it alone in Iraq was that we might get stuck with the entire task and whole bill for rebuilding the country afterwards. Had President Bush asked for help after the war the opponents of the war--Kofi Annan, China, Russia, France, Germany--would almost certainly have scoffed and refused. Today they consider it a victory that they're going to replace us in the quagmire. And Br'er Bush just keeps hoppin' along..."

"However, I do wonder whether the majority of Americans were willing to make sacrifices. The anti-American Vietnam left wasn't, and they are
very powerful and very vocal. "

The existence of a large anti-war faction during Vietnam tells us nothing about the willingness of Americans to make sacrifices when there is a good reason to. It simply tells us that the government can only go on kidnapping Americans and dumping them into a worthless cause for so long before their targets start staging a revolt.

Now of course there will be those that are hesitant to believe that the government's proposed military action actually has the purpose and effect of enhancing America's security (you know the old saying "Once bitten, twice shy"). Trying to draft these people would be an absolute, unmitigated disaster. Fortunately, there is no need to take that route; clearly, we have not heard any serious call for military volunteers, and I have no doubt whatsoever that when such a call does come, it will be answered.

Hitting up the UN or some of our "allies" for the extra manpower would also be a mistake. Having forces whose government actively opposed our mission from day one and showed no signs of changing their minds actively "participating" in it is not a good way to accomplish the mission. I hope that someone is actually being clever enough to be staging it like this:

Bush's Opposition: We need to go to the UN.
Bush: No.
Bush's Opposition: We need to go to the UN.
Bush: No.
Bush's Opposition: We need to go to the UN.
Bush: Oh, all right, if you insist...
Bush (to UN): You guys wanna help out here?
UN: No.
Bush (to Opposition): The UN doesn't want to help us. I guess we're on our own. Sorry guys.

But so far it doesn't look good. It's too easy to spin this as Bush "realizing" that he's in over his head and groveling to the same UN he blew off to bail him out (never mind that the UN blew us off when we proposed enforcing their own resolutions dating back to 1991). If, God help us, Bush actually believes that we're in over our heads and our "allies" and the UN are our only hope, we and the Iraqis are completely screwed.

Ken;

I don't think that protecting the South Vietnamese from the horrors of Communism was a "worthless cause", but beyond that, in my view the problem there was that America likes winners. The American people aren't happy about sacrificing to "hold the line" or "proportionately respond". If sacrifices are going to be made, the American citizenry wants victory in return. Victory redeems the sacrifices in blood and treasury and so the citizenry wants to see real commitment to that before it forks out. Anything for victory, nothing for gestures.

The French are crowing awfully loud over here in Paris. And I'm referring to the centrists: Yes, Chirac and de Villepin are moderates by French political standards. I won't even mention what the extremists are saying, ie, the 35% on the fascist right and the 35% on the fascist left.

What a fucking embarrassment and waste of time.

No, this is not a waste of time.

This is Bush teaching the swing voters via events he arranges.

Bush did this before the 2002 Election and our invasion of Iraq. He is doing it again now.

The discrediting of the U.N. and multilateral dilomacy in general via this initiative is setting the ground work for both future unilateral American foreign policy initiatives and for the Democratic primaries between now and March of 2004. When the Democratic presidential nominee will be decided by the front loaded Democratic primaries.

Glenn over at Instapundit has made much of Bush abandoning his base. That really doesn't matter. What matters is what people vote against.

Bush is manipulating the Democrats to be highly anti-war, pro-multilateral so that both his base and swing voters will have a great deal to vote against.

Of course people who believe Bush is stupid won't believe that until it is far too late.

Maybe, Trent. Mohammed Ali had one opponent: George Foreman. Bush has a lot more variables and imponderables to deal with in a highly volatile situation. I'm not sure that even a genius like Bush can pull of the strategic jujitsu you postulate. In the meantime, to an ordinary Joe like me, doesn't look good.

Innouncement!!!