November 16, 2004
'A Fundamental Disagreement' Over More Than Iraq
By Senator Jon Kyl

Just before Iraqi and coalition troops launched the long-awaited battle to retake the city of Fallujah from lawless insurgents, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan issued a letter that, as the Los Angeles Times put it, illustrates "a fundamental disagreement between the U.S.-led coalition and the U.N. about how best to bring stability to Iraq." It goes to the heart of the larger question of the post-9/11 world: how civilized societies should confront the reality of a large, international network of radical Islamists whose goal is our annihilation and whose principal tool is terrorism.

This great conflict is tragic and frightening, but not altogether without precedent. Adolph Hitler's vision of Nazi domination presented to European leaders in the 1930s a similar choice between aggressive confrontation and appeasement, provoking a debate with eerie similarities to today's.

Under normal circumstances, of course, peace is the heartfelt desire of all honorable men and women who seek only to live in freedom and in harmony with their neighbors. But as Hitler proved, sometimes accommodation is not an option. Or, as Tolstoy put it, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."

President Bush and his allies in Congress and abroad have looked squarely into the eyes of radical Islamic fundamentalists and arrived at the measured conclusion that, ultimately, there can be no compromise between our way of life and theirs. Given the stated desire of groups such as al Qaeda to impose universal sharia, or traditional Islamic law, and to slaughter those who object - not to mention their demonstrated willingness to commit suicide in the process - there is simply no 'middle ground.'

Unfortunately, as in the years before World War II, there are those who will go to great lengths to avoid confronting such unpleasant realities. Which brings us back to Kofi Annan's letter, addressed to President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and interim Iraqi leader Ayad Allawi.

In it, Annan voiced his increasing concern at the "prospect of an escalation in violence," particularly the reports of major military offensives being planned for Falluja. "Ultimately," Annan argued, "the problem of insecurity can only be addressed through dialogue and an inclusive political process."

It boggles the mind that a world leader could display such naivete in the face of efforts by thousands of insurgents and foreign fighters to terrorize and impose a Taliban-style rule in Fallujah, complete with summary executions. Reaction from those on the ground was swift and angry. "I don't know what pressure he has to bear on the insurgents," Allawi said in an interview with the BBC. "If he can stop [them] from inflicting damage and killing Iraqis, then he's welcome." Later, Allawi responded formally to Annan, in a letter so forceful it merits an extended excerpt:

You suggested that the prospect of an escalation in violence could be very disruptive to Iraq's political transition. I share this view. But I believe that this argues for taking firm steps now to tackle the violence we face today. Unchecked, this violence will escalate... At the moment, we have parts of the country in which the civilian population has been hijacked by the terrorists and insurgents operating from places like Fallujah [who] are exporting their violence to other parts of the country.


I was a little surprised by the lack of any mention in your letter of the atrocities which these groups have committed. ... The same group who murdered so many of your staff in the bombing of the UN headquarters last year, has since murdered hundreds of innocent Iraqis and committed countless other atrocities.


I share your strong preference for a political solution over military confrontation. But I did not find in your letter a new plan or a new strategy beyond this strong preference. Essentially, the violent groups have rejected the rule-of-law, without which there can be no democracy. I am not prepared to allow these groups a veto over democracy in Iraq, nor to continue to terrorize the vast majority of Iraqis who want to live in peace and freedom.

The conclusion is unavoidable that, in the words of the Heritage Foundation, "While Iraqis are dying in large numbers at the hands of Al-Qaeda backed foreign fighters and former Baathists, the UN leader's chief concern appears to be the need to negotiate with the insurgents and open 'a new chapter of inclusiveness and national reconciliation.' Annan's letter will give aid and comfort to some of the most barbaric terrorists of modern times."

This is particularly galling given the massive scandal over the UN-administered Oil-for-Food program, and the Security Council's utter failure to deal with Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime and his flouting of endless UN resolutions, its lack of leadership in disarming Iran, and its paralysis in the face of genocide in the Sudan. Worse, the US government has repeatedly asked the United Nations to provide more experts to help prepare for Iraq's January elections, but Annan - who apparently has no sense of irony - has limited the staff in Iraq to 35 until they can be guaranteed better protection.

Last week, the State Department announced that the nation of Georgia would send 691 troops to Iraq as part of a special UN security force. Tiny Fiji has committed another 170 troops to protect UN workers and facilities. One hopes that the leader of the so-called "world body" can take heart from the bravery of these small, poor nations and decide that it's time to play a role in Iraq that does more good than harm.

Jon Kyl (R) is a U.S. Senator from Arizona.