Promises to U.N. faulty, Bush says
by Amy Ridenour

   
   (KRT) WASHINGTON—In environmental economics, there is a concept called “the tragedy of the commons.” It refers to the fact that when land is held in common, that is, is used freely by the public without the supervision of a private owner, it suffers. Its resources are depleted and its maintenance is neglected because no single authority is responsible for its care.

   In the war on terrorism, we must avoid a similar fate. In these days of war speculation in which it is commonly thought that the permission of the United Nations is necessary for a U.S. war against Iraq, we would do well to remember: If everyone is responsible for protecting the world from Iraqi terror weapons, then no one truly is.

   This, briefly, is why the Bush administration would be wrong to give the United Nations veto power over U.S. actions. The question is not: What does the United Nations think? It is: Is war necessary to protect the United States?

   If the alternative to war is less palatable than military action, then on to Baghdad. It is appropriate to request the support of the United Nations, but its endorsement is not required. Responsibility for the defense of the United States is invested by our Constitution in our president and Congress; war decisions are to be made in Washington—not at U.N. headquarters. Democracies properly go to war to protect themselves. President Bush is now making the case that a war against Iraq meets this test. In doing so, he will provide evidence that Saddam Hussein is amassing weapons of mass destruction for use on innocent people.

   It seems likely that Bush will make this case convincingly, as most Americans already agree. Those who oppose Bush’s probable war plans have a moral obligation to tell us a better option. So far, they’ve offered little.

   The most frequent refrain is a call for resumed weapons inspections. Been there, and done that. After the Persian Gulf War, Hussein promised to rid his country of weapons of mass destruction and to allow U.N. inspections to confirm his adherence to his pledge. He brazenly broke these promises; inspections are a joke.

   Bush’s critics simply aren’t suggesting any workable alternative to “regime change,” which apparently means war. Most want to pretend the Iraqi problem does not exist.

   That works—in the short run. In the long term, it may mean body bags in large numbers. Not all of Bush’s critics live in Europe and the Arab states. Some inhabit Congress and seem to be more concerned about the war’s timing—they don’t want it before Election Day—than war itself. This attitude insults everyone.

   If war is to occur, it should take place at the best time for achieving war goals at the least cost in lives. The date of domestic elections in which our commander in chief is not even a candidate is not a proper strategic consideration.

   In any case, we do not know how the timing of a pre-election invasion would influence voters. Fears by the Democrats that the war would go well and voters would reward Bush by backing local Republican candidates are merely speculative.

   Conversely, the war could be harder than expected or voters could perceive that its timing was political. Voters also could decide that since all candidates are pro-U.S. anyway, they’ll vote based on other considerations.

   The bottom line: If the Iraqi threat is serious enough for war, it should be a serious war. That means strategic considerations trump everything, including the United Nations’ opinion.

   If Saddam Hussein launches a massive terror attack against Americans, will the United Nations comfort the widows and raise the orphans? Will the United Nations make us whole? That’s no more accurate than the notion that the United Nations has the right to stop us from self-defense.