JAMES O. GOLDBOROUGH THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE Why we aren't winning the peace in Iraq James O. Goldsborough THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE August 21, 2003 What terrible irony that the United Nations, which stood so steadfastly against George W. Bush's war, should be the target of Tuesday's suicide attack in Baghdad. Turning on your defender is an act of total desperation. In a war that makes no sense, targeting Sergio Vieira de Mello, the U.N. mission leader in Iraq, is like targeting Mother Theresa. A man of great humanity, he was in Iraq to help save the situation into which Bush has placed our nation. To the bombers, however, he was just one more faceless symbol of foreign occupation. As several U.S. and British reports have indicated recently, Bush's war will inevitably lead to an increase in worldwide terrorism. It has animated and coalesced terror groups, drawing them into Iraq as they once went into Afghanistan. This problem, of course, is precisely what the U.N. Security Council worried about. However much Bush's advisers may have disliked Saddam Hussein, war and occupation were always likely to create more problems than they solved. The Bush administration has lost all sense of reality about Iraq. This is perhaps human nature: One tries to defend bad choices by plunging in deeper ? what's called "averaging down" on Wall Street and "doubling up" in gambling. The "Charge of the Light Brigade" mentality is strong among decision-makers back in London or Washington. Examine Bush's use of the word "terrorists" to describe those attacking U.S. forces. What makes people opposing occupation of their land terrorists? Was French, Yugoslav and Greek resistance to Nazi occupation terrorism? Was Native American resistance to white "manifest destiny" terrorism? Is Palestinian resistance to Israeli settlements on the West Bank terrorism? When defeated fighters take up other means to oppose the occupier, do they become terrorists? Who are the terrorists in such situations? Terrorism is sometimes defined as war against civilians, but what if the civilians are illegal settlers? War should be fought only by professional armies, but scorched earth tactics are common to every war. We learned recently from the Union-Tribune's James Crawley that the U.S. military used chemical weapons (napalm- type) against Iraq in a war fought putatively to deprive Iraq of chemical weapons that may not exist. Who is the terrorist? Bush has us in a no-win situation, and no fiddling with words will make things better. This war was conceived by those in the administration who believe it is America's job to remake the Middle East according to their design, and such projects have no record of success in our time. To compare Iraq to postwar Germany or Japan is absurd. Bush's war is imperialism by another name, and the distinction is lost on Iraqis. The problem here is the problem with most imperialist wars: the military part is the easy part. But what then? Two centuries ago, the British could name Victoria Queen of India, and the French could annex Algeria as part of France. A century ago the British could claim Palestine and Iraq as the fruits of war, and the French could do the same with Syria and Lebanon. Let them try it today. Military victory would be just as swift (excepting India), but what then? Talleyrand still said it best: You can do everything with bayonets except sit on them. Paul Wolfowitz and his fellow schemers, whose orders are carried out by L. Paul Bremer in Baghdad, are fighting for Iraqi hearts and minds. It is a battle they cannot win because however noble they think their intentions, they still have turned our nation into invaders and occupiers. Did not Pericles seek to bring democracy to Sparta? Did not Rome seek to civilize Europe in the Roman fashion? The French and British empires were said to be "civilizing" missions, though their true goal was raw materials. What makes our times different is the United Nations. We must establish rules, said the World War II victors, led by the United States. We will create a Security Council which alone will have the authority to make war. When a nation starts a war of aggression, the council will act to stop it. It hasn't worked that way in practice because council nations tend to be the major aggressors, but at least the U.N. Charter provides a benchmark for war legitimacy. The council overwhelmingly believed Bush's war was illegitimate and would make a more dangerous world, and so it has. The United Nations is in an awkward situation. Iraq is not Kosovo where the council helped stop the fighting and create the peace. In Iraq, America brought the fighting and ruined the peace. The council knows after Tuesday's bombing that even if Bush agreed to hand over authority in Iraq to the council, as in Kosovo, which he won't, U.N. troops would be no safer from attack than Americans. America is engaged in a futile process, which anyone with a sense of history could foresee. Our authority is resented, and anyone we elevate alongside us will become an equal target. Our forces live behind walls and wear armor outside them. We are an occupying army attempting to foist our ideas and ways on an ancient people known for its xenophobia. We should not be surprised that the situation is unraveling. Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.