"Perhaps the President knows something about Mr. Brahimi's intentions that the rest of us don't," says a Wall Street Journal editorial this morning.
One mystery of the last year in Iraq is that a U.S. occupation that is supposed to midwife democracy has put so little trust in Iraqis. The Bush Administration may be compounding that error now by abdicating decisions about the June 30 transition to Iraqi rule to U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi . . .
The U.N. envoy was helpful in brokering Afghanistan's postwar government, though in that case the U.S. clearly had a favorite for president in Hamid Karzai. In Iraq Mr. Brahimi is being assigned the role of de facto Douglas MacArthur . . .
The one-sided "cease-fire" in [Fallujah], along with Mr. Brahimi's comments, have already sent a signal of weakness that will only embolden our enemies. The fastest way for Mr. Bush to lose support at home would be if Americans see their soldiers restrained from doing what it takes to win by U.N. statements or political control. That's when his own base begins to walk.
We also doubt the political benefits of this U.N. intervention. The point seems to be to distance any transition government from the taint of U.S. occupation -- never mind that any government will still depend on 135,000 American troops for security. And never mind that Mr. Brahimi, a Sunni who ran the Arab League when it was cozy with Saddam Hussein, may not have any more credibility with Iraq's Shiite majority than L. Paul Bremer.
Exactly. As Whomping Willow blogged recently, citing The View from Baghdad:
I do tons of public opinion research here, and the rhetoric in the USA -- a multi-lateral approach will solve all Iraq's ills -- DOES NOT resonate among the Iraqi people. The UN is seen as the people who helped keep Saddam in power, and let him punish some groups and reward others.
Also, as we noted here the other day, post Saddam, new revelations about the Oil-for-Food scandal haven't improved Iraqis' opinion of the U.N. In fact, U.N. involvement isn't for the Iraqis at all but "a fig leaf to appease domestic and international critics who continue to accuse the Coalition of the Willing of the dread 'unilateralism.'"
Comments