A Canadian for liberating Iraq--and reforming the U.N.
BY BRIAN MULRONEY
[Mr. Mulroney was Canada's prime minister from 1984-93. This article was posted on the WSJ and was adapted from a speech Mr. Mulroney gave last night.] HOW VERY REFRESHING....imo.
Tuesday, October 21, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT
The new and overriding predicate of American policy--foreign, defense, security, domestic--is to ensure that 9/11 never happens again. If the terrorists managed to mount a second such attack anywhere in the U.S., the consequences would be destructive for the nation and calamitous for the administration.
The dominant unspoken thought of the president of the U.S. must therefore be: "I will take whatever action is required to protect America from attack so that it will not be said of me 50 years from today that I was asleep at the switch at a seminal moment in our history."
It is out of these new realities that the doctrine of unilateral pre-emption--so condemned by many allies--emerged. I believe an accurate translation of the doctrine is this: "If the U.S. has persuasive evidence that a country is either contemplating an attack on the U.S. or its allies, or harboring terrorists who might strike out at the U.S. or its allies, then the U.S. will--with Security Council approval or without--pre-emptively act to remove the offending government from office." And why is this doctrine so offensive to so many? Some fear the precedent, others the erosion of multilateralism, and others still a negative impact upon the United Nations.
Although the reality of pre-emptive action is new, so was the terrorist strike on America. What is also new is the suggestion that Security Council approval is--and has been--a sacrosanct precondition to action against a hostile state. The historical record is to the contrary. In any event, I would never have agreed to subcontract Canada's international security decisions and our national interest to 15 members of the Security Council. This would be a surrender of national sovereignty to which I'd never consent.
In fact, a coalition of nations--including France, Germany and Canada--[b]mounted a massive air war against Serbia a few years ago without Security Council authorization, under President Clinton's leadership. There was no "imminence" of attack on any allied nation, nor did Serbia represent a threat to anyone outside her own borders[/i].
Why the reversal of policy when Iraq was involved, with the same nations piously insisting that Security Council approval had to be obtained before any military action could be initiated--and that the absence of any such approval had rendered illegitimate any military action against Saddam Hussein?
Some Security Council members opposed intervention in Yugoslavia, where many innocent people were dying, on the grounds of national sovereignty. Quite frankly, such invocations of the principle of national sovereignty are as offensive to me as the police declining to stop family violence simply because a man's home is supposed to be his castle. We must recognize that there are certain fundamental rights that all people possess--and that, sometimes, the international community must act to defend them[/i].
This is precisely what happened in Iraq, and no amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking will change the fact that the U.S.-led coalition acted in defense of the values contained in Security Council Resolution 1441, and the previous 16 resolutions, all of which Saddam had flouted.
posted on October 21, 2003 12:17:47 PM new
Brian Mulroney was an ultra conservative, Linda. They all tend to think the same, no matter what country they're from. If you really want to know what a great leader he was, look up what he did for Canada with the 1988 US/Canada trade agreement or NAFTA. His biggest complaint was how unbalanced the trade deficit was, so what did he do...? He promised most of our oil to the the U.S. for really cheap prices - forever. What a great leader!
posted on October 21, 2003 12:39:55 PM new
KD - I guess both sides [liberals and conservatives] do that.
I was not aware of his other political positions. But rather found his 'take' on the US actions in Iraq to be very much in line with the way I see the situation surrounding our Iraq involvement situation. But he's much more articulate than I and made a great case for preemptive action, imo.
His views are similar to President Bush's, and mine, when it comes to protecting our nation, preemptive war, how he views the function of the UN. And also in regard to not letting other nations in the UN make a country's decision's for them.
So...I'm not surprised to hear he's a conservative. Thanks
posted on October 21, 2003 01:05:09 PM new
Linda, even though we don't agree on some political issues, you make the best arguements here, imho, for your political beliefs.
Bunni said it well when she explained about how 911 "saved" Bush Jr. He went from a goof to a leader in the days following. If he had've stopped at Afghanistan before invading Iraq, he would've been fine (imo). The terrorist thing went to his head, when he stated to all, that this was a war (on terrorism) that will never end. That scared my pants off! Put that together with Osama's goal of bankrupting the U.S., and they both get their wishes.
posted on October 21, 2003 01:26:28 PM new
KD - Thank you.
On bunni - It is good to have her posting here again.
On the 'will never end'. I don't know I'd go that far, but do believe it's going to be a long long fight.
Although many here don't agree with continuing the fight against terrorism our representatives DO.
"Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003"
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
10/15/2003
House Roll Call No. 543
108th Congress, 1st Session
Passed: 398-4 (see complete tally)
H.R. 1828, amended, to halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil and illegal shipments of weapons and other military items to Iraq, and by so doing hold Syria accountable[/i].
With a vote of 398 to 4 I'd say a LOT of democrats support our war on terrorism, while not necessaryily supporting Bush. There are many more than 4 democrats in our House of Reps.
Bush has taken a strong stand on this issue. And can be trusted to continue following the course. And as proven by the above vote, many, many American's support this fight. They understand the terrorism issue isn't liberals against republicans, but rather our country against terrorism.
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 21, 2003 01:29 PM ]
posted on October 21, 2003 02:34:17 PM new
I understand what you mean, Linda. I agree that terrorism has to be addressed. I also understand how you feel about past Presidents that did a lot of bluffing to appease the enemies, and that Bush felt the U.S. had had enough and was ready to act. It would be a difficult position for any President who's country was attacked.
There are a lot of creeps in the world, and even though Bush could be viewed as noble for his decisions, he could also be viewed as opening up a can of worms that the American people will be paying for, for the rest of their lives.
If it's really terrorism he's after, he needs to concentrate on Osama & Co., the perpetrators of 911. His going after Iraq with the possibility of NK and Iran next could lead some to believe his intentions are deeper than just bringing the 911 people to justice.
posted on October 21, 2003 02:57:50 PM new
KD - And I think you did a GREAT job of doing so.
Truly. And I do understand the other side's position. I just don't think that would work. I think we need to do all we can to work towards preventing another attack, rather than waiting until we are attacked again and then reacting.
That's what each American voter is going to have weighing heavily on their minds come time to vote to elect, or re-elect a president next year. In what ways will this president
work to prevent another 9-11.
Do we think terrorists can be negociated with? Would doing nothing look to the terrorists like we were weak, as bin laden has said we were? If we allow the terrorist groups to flourish will they fight together against the US?
NOT easy questions to answer. Not easy decisions to make.
But you know I do hold the position that we are working on terrorism from many aspects. We're still trying to find binladin. We're still working to rebuild Afghanistan. We're still working at getting saddam.
And as you can see Iran has now agreed to let inspectors come in to verify what womd program they have/don't have. That wouldn't have happened, imo, IF the US wasn't maintaining this pressure. Then look at my above article on Syria. They know they're going to have to chose which direction they're going to go.
At some point we as a nation will have to pull together and make a decision that it is 'us against them'. Them being the terrorists. Because, imo, they see liberals, democrats, independents, etc....all the same way. We're their enemy.
posted on October 21, 2003 03:19:58 PM new
Helen -
Thank-you, Linda!
I agree with you, that other countries that surround Iraq, will not be too quick to do any stupid posturing - right now. Short term, things could appear to be working. Long term, they'll fail, mainly because the U.S. will end up occupying Iraq. That's why I feel it's sooo important for all other countries to help with the Iraqi clean-up. Other than running the Husseins out of town, not much has been accomplished (imo) and this all needs to stop. The U.S. need to refocus on terrorism. It's the world responsibility to help end this, so the U.S. can maintain it's focus. Long term, that will be a benefit to everyone.
P.S. Don't forget, these terrorists are nothing more than religious fanaticals. So in a way, this is a war against religion.
Thanks
