Stardate 20040124.1521

(Captain's log): Carol writes:

Elections in Iraq now hint, or need, the UN's 'feasibility' study. Does that mean if Annan goes French on us, again, then Bush announces his own change in plans? Bush can always point to the ten years it took, from 1776, to 1787, in order for America's fledging independence to take hold. It wasn't easy satisfying everyone. And, the core depends on equal branches of government to 'check and balance' each other. Why should Annan think Bush just gave the UN a 'free ride?'

The shape of the international world is undergoing major and irreversible changes, and part of that has involved power struggles. Last year the UN made its big play to try to assert control over the US, and it failed when Bush and Blair made the decision to invade Iraq without further UNSC action. What was proved at that point was that the UN did not have the ability to force the US to do anything against its will. Thus when the US and UK went back to the UN last summer, the UNSC passed a resolution which gave the US and UK pretty much everything they wanted, including formally recognizing the occupation and terminating the UN "oil for food" program.

What got proved last year was that the UN needs the US more than the US needs the UN. The UN as an institution risks complete irrelevancy and a grave right beside the League of Nations if it antagonizes the US too severely, and as a result it will not risk doing so. But the US was clearly not seriously debilitated by UN opposition.

That question won't be opened again. On the other hand, as long as the true situation is understood by everyone, then the UN can be at least somewhat useful and can be permitted the illusion of relevance. And in this case, that permits us to defuse another power struggle.

The Ayatollah Sistani is attempting to position himself as a major player in determining Iraq's political future, as de-facto representing the Shiite majority. His recent demands for elections, and the demonstrations held to support him, were attempts to show that he has real power to disrupt any plan which doesn't satisfy him. Elections as such weren't really the issue; the point was to prove that he cannot be ignored.

Bremer is trying to bring order out of chaos, but he's not trying to impose a solution on Iraq. (For one thing, it would be futile to do so because it would be guaranteed to fail.) So he's been working with various Iraqi factions to try to come up with a plan that has the best chance of succeeding. Sistani wanted to be included in that more than he apparently had been, and so he provoked a crisis as a way of establishing himself.

And now he's made his point. But everyone needs a face-saving way of backing away from the immediate crisis, and getting the UN involved was a good way to do that.

What's going to happen is that the UN team will agree with Bremer that elections aren't possible. Sistani could not give away that point directly to Bremer because it would make him look weak, but he can accept it from the UN, and will.

And the UN won't blow its lines, because if it crosses us up on this, then it is history. That's why it caved in last summer, and that's why it isn't going to "go French" now.

The other question has more to do with Libya and the black market in nuclear products. What if the 'cooperation' sought with giving up his arsenal, really means Qadaffi just want to have a fire sale on the black market, passing this crap onto others? Isn't this where the money is?

Qadaffi doesn't need money. What he needs is to know he isn't going to end up in a hole in the ground like Saddam's. Qadaffi has burned his bridges with the Islamists, and crossed up all his partners in WMD development. If he turns out to be crossing us, too, then he will have made plenty of enemies, and won't have any friends left.

Qadaffi has bet the farm on this, because the Islamists and his former development partners will never trust him again. He has to follow through now and cooperate with us fully, because he no longer has anywhere else to turn.