02-14-2003, 10:29 PM
Leadership is not always easy, and sometimes, leading is asking people to trust that where you are going is the right place to go, and to be. In many regards, going back to the founding of the UN, the leadership of the US has been a given for "the free world." That had to do with where the world was headed, tyranny or freer and open societies. Some in America do not feel we should wear that mantle unless people elsewhere are begging us to do so, and others feel that such an approach is not leading, it is reacting.
What the administration is attempting to do is to lead some Doubting Thomas nations to a successful attempt to restore confidence that when a UN Security Council resolution is violated, repeatedly, there are serious consequences. As we can see by following the press, with less than spectacular success.
What makes it a bit contentious at this point, in the here and now, is that since 1993, the resolve to do so had been waning, and most particularly since 1998, when the Security Council's inspectors were sent home, under the nose of and with the support of Russia and France, both security council members. The signal sent was that the UN Security Council demands won't be backed up credibly. Yet the terms of the armistice of 1991, wherein the UN forces led by the US agreed to stop blowing things up in Iraq if
X, Y, Z conditions were met
still have not been met, and don't appear to some to have any hope of ever being met.
It is tough to re ignite an interest in doing the hard thing once such interest has lapsed. You yourself, and others, certainly have posted on the Lounge that you see there being no need to do so.
Mayor Koch, it appears, having seen the world from a big picture view a few times, may understand, or sympathize with, what President Bush is trying to do. Get something difficult and necessary done.
Could the rhetoric, particularly the public rhetoric from Washington, have been more elegant?
For sure.
Mayhap the Mayor sees things from a perspective that tells him something differently than what your perspective tells you. (You live in New York, right?)
What the administration is attempting to do is to lead some Doubting Thomas nations to a successful attempt to restore confidence that when a UN Security Council resolution is violated, repeatedly, there are serious consequences. As we can see by following the press, with less than spectacular success.
What makes it a bit contentious at this point, in the here and now, is that since 1993, the resolve to do so had been waning, and most particularly since 1998, when the Security Council's inspectors were sent home, under the nose of and with the support of Russia and France, both security council members. The signal sent was that the UN Security Council demands won't be backed up credibly. Yet the terms of the armistice of 1991, wherein the UN forces led by the US agreed to stop blowing things up in Iraq if
X, Y, Z conditions were met
still have not been met, and don't appear to some to have any hope of ever being met.
It is tough to re ignite an interest in doing the hard thing once such interest has lapsed. You yourself, and others, certainly have posted on the Lounge that you see there being no need to do so.
Mayor Koch, it appears, having seen the world from a big picture view a few times, may understand, or sympathize with, what President Bush is trying to do. Get something difficult and necessary done.
Could the rhetoric, particularly the public rhetoric from Washington, have been more elegant?
For sure.
Mayhap the Mayor sees things from a perspective that tells him something differently than what your perspective tells you. (You live in New York, right?)
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete