August
20, 2003, 8:45 a.m. Them
vs. the Civilized World
U.N. bombing in Baghdad.
We have
suffered greatly from the United Nations. Under no circumstances should
any Muslim or sane person resort to the United Nations. The United Nations
is nothing but a tool of crime.
— Osama bin Laden, November
3, 2001
he terrorist bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad was a particularly
brutal and senseless act of violence. Whose idea was it to kill Sergio
Vieira de Mello, U.N. special representative in Iraq and former High
Commissioner for Human Rights? Who thought it would be useful for the
cause to murder Chris Klein-Beckman the head of UNICEF in Iraq? How would
all the other dozens of death and casualties bring about the Islamic paradise
the terrorists say they are fighting to establish? If nothing else, killing
this group of peaceful people pursuing a humanitarian mission demonstrated
the terrorists’ sincerity. They really are at war with the civilized world.
As
of this writing it is hard to determine who was behind the bombing. Al Qaeda
declared war on the U.N. in 2001, but Saddam had a grudge going back to
1990. The National Islamic Resistance, the name used by a group claiming
to be the umbrella organization of Iraqis opposed to the liberation, denied
having anything to do with the bombing, and condemned it as a criminal act.
This dovetails with the idea that the attack was the work of foreign infiltrators,
perhaps in league with Ansar al-Islam, the al Qaeda affiliate from northern
Iraq. It is also noteworthy that on Monday al Qaeda spokesman Abdel Rahman
Al-Najdi called for increased attacks in Iraq, though did not mention going
after the U.N. specifically.
The most recent
U.N. transgression from the terrorist point of view was unanimously passing
UNSC
Resolution 1500, which recognized the authority of the new Iraqi ruling
council and established the U.N. Assistance Mission. (Syria, notably,
abstained from the vote, citing that the resolution did not contain a
timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.) This may have been the motive
for the attack. It parallels the car bombing of the Jordanian embassy,
ostensibly for granting Saddam’s daughters asylum, but also for generally
supporting the Coalition in its regime-change mission. Both attacks were
apparently punitive, and both against soft targets. Rather than focusing
their energies against the United States, the terrorists are aiming at
anyone against who they have a grudge, and in the process strengthening
the argument that they represent a threat to peace generally, and strengthening
the international anti-terror Coalition.
There may be a method
to their particular type of madness. I was reminded of Rwanda in 1994.
The Hutus kicked off their genocide by hacking apart ten Belgian U.N.
peacekeepers as a warning to outsiders not to get involved. In this case
it worked — the U.N. did not respond to the mounting slaughter despite
daily entreaties by the local U.N.-0forces commander, Canadian General
Romeo Dallaire, who later suffered a nervous breakdown. This event could
be one of the inspirations for the Baghdad bombing, simple intimidation
through a gross act of violence. It worked in Africa, it could work in
Iraq. But much has changed since the 1990s. Even the U.N. can recognize
that it was the collective failed leadership of that era that spawned
the very threat we now are fighting. That lesson has been learned. These
days, attacks of this sort this do not discourage or deter, they intensify
resolve.
Vieira de Mello
might seem a poorly chosen victim. He did not support Coalition military
action against Iraq, and in one of his last interviews described the occupation
of Iraq as “traumatic. This must be one of the most humiliating periods
in the history of this people. How would you like it if your country were
to be occupied?” He believed stability could be achieved by restoring
Iraq’s infrastructure, establishing an Iraqi police force, and phasing
out the Coalition presence as soon as possible. Laudable goals —
but directly at variance with those of the terrorists. If the Iraqi people
establish their own democratic government in a climate of peace and security,
the Islamic revolution won’t stand a chance. So the terrorists strike
targets that increase the misery of the Iraqi people, like electrical
lines and water mains; that deny them the income they need to build their
new state, like oil pipelines; and that make international involvement
in the development process as difficult and dangerous as possible. Most
of these types of targets are easier to attack than military installations
or convoys. The U.N. headquarters could have been beefed up — Vieira
had recommended as much, ironically — but the U.N. did not want an
American-supplied security perimeter. Perhaps they believed that associating
that closely with the United States would increase the danger of attack,
but in fact it was the headquarters’ own weakness that made it irresistible
to the bombers.
Thus far international
reaction to the bombing is universally condemnatory. There are no signs
yet that the U.N. will use it as a pretext to leave Iraq. And this tragedy,
like the Bali bombing in 2002, or the 9/11 attacks, serves to clarify
both the high stakes for which the war is being fought, and the intensity
of the enemy’s hatred for all that is not them. Despite what one might
think about the U.N. as an organization, the victims of the Baghdad bombing
were humanitarian workers on a mission to improve the lives of the Iraqi
people. From the terrorist point of view, this is why they had to die.
When the radicals say they loathe everything the civilized world stands
for, believe it.
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
he terrorist bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad was a particularly
brutal and senseless act of violence. Whose idea was it to kill 
