________

Thanks again for responding.

Again, you assume I am in Israel’s corner. I stop short of calling them terrorists. But that is about it. I think the US has caused many of its own problems by looking the other way while Israel crushed the Palestinians. I have NO love for Israel and think the way the US protects it is counter productive.

There is no solution in Iraq that does not involve a Palestinian state and a democratic Lebanon. It doesn’t matter what our government or the Iraqi government does. Middle East peace goes first through Jerusalem and then through Beirut and finally through Baghdad.

By the way. You can have a conversation with me without calling me a “devil”. I know that kind of talk drives readers to your blog. But if you are at all interested in dialogue I would humbly suggest no name calling.

Kind Regards,

Ben

“narrow view” better than being a “devil view”. All what you said and trying to spread is nothing but justification for war criminals to do what they are doing in Iraq and elsewhere. I’m sorry, but no one here buys this shit.

I challenge you to apply the same standards on other dictatorships in the region. Say, Israeli occupation of Palestine. But you don’t have to try, it already smells rotten.

Knesset huh? You assume too much. I am sorry you have such a narrow view of those that disagree with you.

“Until the mischief be grown general, and the evil designs of the RULERS become visible, the people, who are MORE disposed to SUFFER than to right themselves by resistance are not apt to stir.” – Locke [emphasis mine]

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same course, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY to throw off such government, and to provide NEW guards for their future safety.” – Declaration of Independence [emphasis mine]

When Iraq did not avail themselves of their rights or perform their duty to remove Saddam Hussein and when failing to do so became a destabilizing force of attrition and uncertainty to the region it became the right and duty of other nations to confront that destabilization of attrition and uncertainty. Confrontation that, in the scope of historical conflict, is neither unjust nor unnecessarily brutal. The concept of bloodless war and effortless freedom is a new concept not supported by history or “Common Sense”.

Evidence of this bloodless concept is the abandonment of Iraq by its citizens of means. The drain of professionals whose education and skills was sorely needed only served to prolong the suffering of those who chose to stay or had no choice but to stay. Further evidence is the depiction of US troops as indiscriminant in their war-fighting. By any fair and unbiased measure of the whole the US military has shown unprecedented restraint -possibly to the detriment of the mission.

Kofi Annan on the Responsibility to Protect –

“This responsibility lies, first and foremost, with each individual State, whose primary raison d’être and duty is to protect its population. But if national authorities are unable or unwilling to protect their citizens, then the responsibility shifts to the international community…”

What happens when the apparatus of the UN, the Security Council that he later describes, also fails? Like in the Balkans? Or Rwanda? Or Darfur? And when diplomacy is a circular game rather than a useful tool? Then does serving the Purposes and Principles of the UN require stepping outside its framework? What is the higher priority? Certainly not the procedure, but rather the Purpose and Principle.

Can a good argument be made that the Iraq war is itself more destabilizing than Saddam? Yes, but that argument must rely on short sighted and outmoded concepts that don’t take into consideration our global interconnectedness or the historical benefit of liberty and democracy -benefits that take generations to fully realize.

Has the Iraq war been prosecuted well? Obviously not. There have been too many mistakes that continue to cost thousands of Iraqi lives and hundreds of US and Coalition lives. Do these mistakes constitute negligence? I am open to that, but don’t at this time think so.

Therefore, to say that the Iraq war is “illegal” or to use the word “occupation” in a pejorative way is to avoid the facts. Facts supported by modern and historical notions of the rights of man and the obligations of government.

Benjamin Cook
Director, the Organization for Public Diplomacy

With all respect, you can take your rambling to the Knesset or the Congress and I’m sure you will win the next presidential elections.

Your “legal” war in Iraq is called “occupation”. Your “legal” occupation costed Iraq, so far, one million life and more than four million refugees. This is what you call “legal” and more to come with your new “legal” war on Iran.

Call it whatever you want, but for humans with minimum IQ, they know that all what US army did and is still doing in Iraq is nothing but “illegal occupation” and continuous “war crimes”.

Ah but he is the left’s hero. The man they go to when they need someone to sound smart while saying nothing.

To the point, his mischaracterization of what the UN charter says and stands for is typical of someone with his unyielding narrative of doom and hate.

Here is a letter penned just today to someone who was also mistaken about the US relationship with the UN. Perhaps its wisdom will do good here as well.

________________________

You are close. But not quite there in your understanding of the UN Charter.

Iraq is a member and was required to uphold the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. Just as it is incumbent upon all members to up hold the purposes and principles of the UN. Failure to do so by act or OMISION is the only “crime” that continually goes purposefully unnoticed. Additionally, the doctrine of the “responsibility to protect” removes traditional Westphalian concepts of sovereignty and promotes a Lockian concept that suggests nations are only truly sovereign when they provide for freedom and liberty of its own citizens and are not a destabilizing force to their neighbors. Neighbors that in today’s globally interconnected world constitute any country affected by the destabilizing forces in question. (i.e. not just those that share a border)

Further, it is lunacy to suggest that the question of conflict be left solely to the UNSC. The perm. 5 members have demonstrated over and again that they can not come to any consensus within effective time frames and can only agree on least common denominator principles that prove to be ineffective and serve to undermine the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

As well, the UN charter provides for regional alliances for protection and for “responsibility to protect” missions. The term regional is now seen to mean any bilateral or larger force that works for the Purposes and Principles of the UN. In the case of the Balkans the Purpose and Principles of the UN were served without the approval of the UNSC. The actions by NATO in the Balkans have widely been held up to be within the Purposes and Principles meeting the requirements of a regional alliance and were not therefore illegal under the UN charter.

The Iraq war consists of a broader alliance than was present in the Balkans. It meets the Purpose and Principle requirement as described above and by any non biased measure is therefore not illegal.

There are also questions of what can and can not be “legal” in terms of international law if there is no FUNCTIONING body to adjudicate fairly what is legal and what is not. Since there is NO FUNCTIONING and UNBIASED body it can be said that issues of legality are merely academic and not in any way enforceable even if unbiased adjudication was possible.

As you can see it is not as easy as just saying the US actions in Iraq are “illegal” under the UN Charter. It is in fact quite complicated. Made so by changing norms in International Relations and the inadequacy of the United Nations. Inadequacy that is partly because of dated concepts and partly because of the self serving nature of the permanent 5 and other members.

I hope this helps you better understand the dynamics at work.

Kind Regards,

Benjamin Cook
Director, the Organization for Public Diplomacy
http://www.org4pd.org