What's the UN good for?

Kofi Annan sent a letter (which was angrily rejected) to the US, Britain and Iraq, warning that "a military offensive in the Sunni stronghold of Fallujah could jeopardize the credibility of upcoming elections in Iraq", according to the Washington Post. Annan closed his letter with this - "Ultimately, the problem of insecurity can only be addressed through dialogue and an inclusive political process."

What planet does Annan live on? The people he's so concerned about are terrorists who cut people's heads off, execute people by shooting them in the back of the head, use women and children as human shields and murder by car bomb and IED. They have sworn to fight to the death. They insist that there is no room for negotiation. How can we possibly work through the UN to achieve peace when they want to negotiate with these people?

Annan's concern seems peculiarly misplaced considering he pulled his UN team out of Baghdad after these same people blew up the UN's building and killed many of their people, and he refused to allow the UN mission to return! How would killing terrorists "jeopardize the credibility" of elections? By not allowing them to vote?

The problem is that Annan, like many liberals, refuses to admit what these people really are.

In letters dated Oct. 31 and addressed to President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and interim Iraqi leader Ayad Allawi, Annan said using military force against insurgents in the city would further alienate Sunni Muslims already feeling left out of a political process orchestrated largely by Washington.

This is not a Sunni insurgency! The Iraqis know this. Why don't the liberals? Why doesn't the UN?

Captain Ed has much more and highlights the hypocrisy of the UN.

Annan's reaction to terrorists in Fallujah is quite enlightening. Here we have a city that holds some of the worst terrorists in the world, including the bloodthirsty Abu Masab al-Zarqawi, and Annan gets weak-kneed at the thought of eliminating him. It shows that the UN will never be an effective partner against global terrorism. For Annan and the UN bureaucracy, negotiations become an end instead of a tactic, in which the existence of dialogue is held more valuable than the saving of lives or the freedom of people.

This has import for the future. Eventually we will have to deal with North Korea, Iran and Syria. None of these countries will be impressed by weakness. In the end, we may have to ignore the UN completely if we're going to resolve these difficult problems.

Annan certainly doesn't inspire any confidence that the UN can be helpful.