Best Possible Outcomes

There is a bit of a debate going on between Paul at Powerline and Ed at Captain's Quarters over the Bush Administration role in the U.N. cease fire resolution in the war between Israel and Hezbollah. Paul is critical of the Bush administration and Ed agrees with the role the U.S. played. One of the criticisms of Ed that Paul put foreword is

Ed has bought into the notion that there had to be a UN resolution. That's manifestly not the case, except to the extent that the Bush administration was unwilling to take the heat associated with no resolution.

The problem with this is, that it is not that there had to be a U.N. resolution, is that there was going to be. The question facing the Bush administration was - do we just let a resolution happen and veto it in the Security Council? Do we let a resolution favorable to Hezbollah pass and force Israel to either live with it or reject it? Do we get involved and craft a resolution that is as favorable to Israel as possible, putting the burden of its success or failure squarely on Hezbollah and the Lebanese government?

Diplomatically, the U.S. and Israel were being painted into a corner - in large part through their own actions and statements. U.N. action was inevitable. It was either let a Security Council resolution be another diplomatic/PR victory for Hezbollah or use the U.N. to our and Israel's best advantage. If you examine the resolution passed by the Security Council we clearly succeeded in helping Israel.

That we actually got a resolution through the U.N. that was favorable to Israel is cause for celebration not criticism.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 05:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment