No one wants to see innocent victims of this war go without food. And it's to everyone's advantage to see that wrecked nation steer its own political destiny once the killing stops and reconstruction begins. But American taxpayers haven't had a walk in the park either. In addition to bankrolling the whole affair while other countries hold their wallets and speak piously, U.S. citizens also have endured economic recession, braced for the death or injury of its soldiers, listened to the world's catcalls for taking a stand, and generally seen public life turned upside down. Why should they be left holding an empty moneybag for the trouble of bringing new freedom and (hopefully) stability to a long-oppressed people? Why should the U.N.'s role after the war be any more significant than its role while the bullets are flying?
Remember, the U.S.-brokered Marshall Plan revived Europe after World
War II and protected much of it from falling to communism. Who can argue convincingly that the U.N. is better equipped than the United States to properly manage Iraqi oil profits once the war ends? Imagine America paying to oust Hussein, plus rebuild Iraq, while the U.N. waltzes in to happily distribute cash and food that belongs to the Iraqi people in the first place.
Why don't we just tell the U.N. to butt out? We should join forces with Britain's courageous prime minister, Tony Blair, and a few others and do as the victorious allies did after World War II: rebuild a torn world in our own image. Does anyone doubt such a team would fashion a humanitarian program more effective than anything the balky administrative apparatus of the U.N. could muster? After all, it was none other than World War II alliance leader Winston Churchill who drew the current borders of Iraq.
Time to break out the sketchpad again.