> I'm worrying what the chances of Bush getting his U.N. resolution >passed;
if he does, will this implode that portion of the peace movement >that
dishonestly insists that war must be multilateral, not unilateral? The
>propaganda offensive is going to be fierce. Anyone have any thoughts >on
this?
>
I think a lot depends on the missile system Iraq's been asked to destroy. On the one hand, it's worrisome because it was the pride and joy of Iraq's military-industrial complex and it's asking a lot of any country to destroy some of its best weapons right when it's about to be invaded. On the other hand, if Iraq does destroy the missiles, it would probably have a big psychological effect on the Security Council, precisely because it's such a tall order. So far, there's been no official response from Baghdad, but a member of Iraq's parliament said today that Iraq ought to destroy the missiles. Presumably he wouldn't have said that if the regime was dead-set against it.
The trends on the Security Council right now are good. Mexico's antiwar stand is very firm, which is amazing. And Chirac's joint statement with 50-odd African countries is very helpful, since there are three African countries on the Council now, including the current president, Guinea. Also, Russia has dispatched ex-PM Primakov to Baghdad. This is a very good sign, since Primakov probably has more influence on Saddam than any other foreigner. (Sy Hersh once reported that Primakov was actually on Saddam's payroll when he was prime minister. Don't know if it's true.) Primakov will presumably tell Saddam to comply with inspections, and since it's an official visit, he might have a mandate to offer Saddam some kind of reward in return from Moscow.
If Iraq destroys the missiles, barring some dramatic unexpected developments over the next three weeks, I'd say the chances of passing the resolution are significantly less than 50-50.
Seth