|
[Previous entry: "Terrorism and the Canal Hotel Bombing"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Global Reach IV: Hail Iceland!"] 26 August 2003: "Canal Hotel supplemental"
In my previous entry, I remarked on the security, or lack thereof, at the Canal Hotel. Now, I want to make it unambiguously clear that I'm not about to point fingers at the United States that this incident took place; but Ralph Peters, the author of this op-ed piece in the New York Post (via normblog), is barking up the wrong tree.
In the weeks before the truck-bomb attack, the U.N.'s veteran security officer on site struggled, argued and begged for better protection. He knew the Canal Hotel was a vulnerable and likely target - but the U.N. chain of command refused to acknowledge the dimensions of the threat.Not true; about three weeks before the bombing, Vieira de Mello himself remarked that the UN presence in Iraq "remains vulnerable to any who would seek to target our organisation." In response, the mission adopted the standard UN posture by seeking to foster and project an image of impartiality. Vieira de Mello emphasised repeatedly that his job was to protect the Iraqi people under occupation, expressed sympathy at the Iraqis' plight, and the Canal Hotel was kept looking like it housed a neutral body. Barbed wire and barricades were eschewed, and yes, American offers of military protection were refused. The reason for this should be obvious: if the UN had accepted American military protection, it would have identified itself as being part of the apparatus of occupation, co-opted into the American-led effort. Under those circumstances, it would be a murky question whether attacks on UN personnel or facilities would be acts of terrorism or of legitimate resistance against a foreign occupier. Maybe American forces could have safeguarded the Canal Hotel from attack, but would they have been willing to provide escorts for every single UN convoy (such as the one that was shot at in Mosul), every work crew repairing electricity lines, every sub-office in the country? Given that the US military already stretched perilously thin, how would this diversion of American resources have gone down with the editorial staff at the New York Post? Ralph Peters would have been complaining about how scandalous it was to spend American money and risk American live to protect a bunch of bureaucrats (you have to refer to UN staff members as "bureaucrats" at least once per column, or risk being ejected from the Guild of Lazy Cliché-Prone Journalists) from an organisation which only gets in the way of America's manifest destiny. As it happens, the "neutral image" tactic didn't work; that's not to say it shouldn't have been tried. Certainly, the alternatives do not appear to have been more attractive at the time, thouhg with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight that might not seem to be the case. As I said before, I'm not about to point fingers at the United States that this incident took place. When an atrocity like this is committed, the responsibility lies with those who give the orders, pull the triggers and detonate the explosives. But not being directly to blame does not make one immune from criticism. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, noted that while it is extremely difficult to guard against terrorist attacks, the broader issue of "securing the environment" in Iraq was the responsibility of the Coalition Provisional Authority, i.e. the United States, and noted that the CPA has thus far failed to do so. He has a valid point; the CPA is the de facto government of occupation, which means that the Americans never get to say "It's not our problem." By occupying Iraq, the current administration has made everything that happens—or should happen but does not—in Iraq its problem. While Ralph Peters' expression of appreciation for the efforts of individual GIs in the aftermath of the terrorist attack may be appropriate, what is not is his chest-thumping proclamation that [...] we're Americans, of course. We'll save your sorry backsides, even after you trash us.By carrying out the rescue effort, the American military was simply discharging the responsibility placed upon it by the United States government. That it performed this task well is deserving of appreciation, but that the rescue effort took place was not "above and beyond the call of duty" and let's not pretend it was. In the meantime, the Inernational Committee for the Red Cross has announced it is scaling back its operations in Iraq; given that the ICRC is usually the last to flee a war zone, this is not an encouraging signal that the Coalition Provisional Authority is in control of Iraq. Chest-beating on the part of any Americans is premature, to put it mildly. |
Navigation: home archives backgrounder Blogs:
au currant Miscellanea:
Care to contribute |
