Tuesday, April 13, 2004
On Lurch (again):
If you don’t know who Lurch is by now, I can’t help you. In today’s Washington Post, he has written and op-ed piece with his strategy for solving all the problems in Iraq. I’m not even going to bother to link you to it, because the whole piece is a sad waste of the printed page, or bandwidth – whichever you use.
I will however, boil Lurch’s strategy down into a few coherent sentences – basically taking out all of the political gobbley gook that makes up the lion’s share of any and all statements made by Lurch.
Part 1 of Lurch’s strategy: Turn control and power regarding Iraq’s transition to democracy over to the UN.
Part 2: Leave security responsibility to NATO. Loosely translated, this means the US Military would be responsible for Iraqi security, however command and control of the bulk of the US Armed forces would fall under the UN.
Back in 1971, Lurch testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he envisioned a day in which the military forces of the United States would be deployed only with the order and permission of the UN. Many people have said his testimony at that time is not relevant to his quest for the presidency. I beg to differ.
Lurch fails to recognize a fundamental fact of the situation in Iraq. The UN did not support nor condone the actions that liberated Iraq. It did not send its forces into harms way, and it has not paid the price in blood and treasure necessary to get a seat at the table where power and responsibility are divvied up.
Lurch is also unaware, purposefully so, of the criminal debacle that was Iraq’s “Oil for Food” program. This program, overseen by the UN, put untold amounts of money in Saddam’s coffers – funds that were allegedly earmarked for food.
Why would a reasonable person ever think to put such an organization in charge of the corner grocery store, let alone Iraq?
Here endeth the lesson.