- The Washington Times - Saturday, November 17, 2001

I have read recently several reports in The Washington Times about the proposed installation of a United Nations-led interim government in Afghanistan once the current hostilities are over. This is the absolute worst option.

Are the people who support this proposition that naive? Do they honestly believe that the United Nations has the ability to run a country? Which of the current or past U.N.-led disasters supports this notion? The Western Sahara? Bosnia? Somalia? East Timor? And these are only the most recent debacles.

The United Nations has a long and sad history in these situations. Once entrenched, the United Nations will not leave, whether it is successful or not. The reason is money. The United Nations will insist that the situation is too unstable for it to leave and that member states must continue to fund its operations.

The United States, of course, ends up paying most of the tab.

Forming a coalition government is far superior to giving the United Nations control over the situation. In the end, a coalition will have a better chance for success and will save American taxpayers billions of dollars.


RANDALL STEPHENS

Washington


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide