December 16, 2004

Iraqi Judges and NATO's Near-Worthlessness

Roger Simon points to Andrew Apostolou's NRO article on why we cannot depend on the support of NATO in Iraq and elsewhere. I've been coming to the conclusion that NATO is fundamentally broken after their Cold War mission disappeared, and Andrew presents more evidence in that direction.

Meanwhile, Roger Simon also has a post on the lack of help from NGOs and European war-crimes experts in helping prepare the Iraqi judiciary. Certainly, this is an area where you would expect the NGOs and Europe's most virulent human rights supporters to come together and help: train judges to handle the trials of men who likely murdered 300000+ of their subjects? But no, apparently not. Which is further evidence towards the proposition that the NGOs and European tribunals are also fundamentally broken.

Posted by Jeff at December 16, 2004 01:07 PM | Link Cosmos
Comments

The tyrant-enabling community wanted Saddam to be turned over to them for trial arguing that the Iraqis were too primitive to be trusted with such a responsibility. Basically, the Euros were concerned that without a rigged trial any competent court would end up giving Saddam Hussein the death penalty.

In other words, they want an incompetent court of jurisdiction- much like the Euro-run Milosevic trial- which I believe may be nearing - what? - some kind of anniversary. 3 years ? 5 years ? I forget.

Posted by: mark safranski on December 16, 2004 09:12 PM

"I've been coming to the conclusion that NATO is fundamentally broken after their Cold War mission disappeared, and Andrew presents more evidence in that direction."

And I don't see any particular tragedy in that. At least not for the United States. Alliances come and go—permanent interests and all that rot.

And the Milosevic trial illustrates the problem with bureaucratic anything. I mean if the trial ends they'll have to find something else to do now won't they?

Posted by: Dave Schuler on December 17, 2004 01:33 PM
Post a comment