| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Sergio Vieira de Mello Died Trying for Another Miracle |
| 2003-08-20 |
| This piece in WaPo is part travelogue, part editorial, part personal remembrance so only the first few paragraphs here. But it does sound like Sergio was one of the good guys. Sergio Vieira de Mello had been sitting in the garden at The Washington Post’s residence in Baghdad on a sweltering Friday afternoon last month, sipping a glass of Pinot Grigio and digging into a plate of hummus, when his tiny mobile phone began chirping. Frowning ever so slightly at the interruption to what he called his first chance to relax since arriving in Iraq as U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan’s special representative, Vieira de Mello excused himself and took the call. Ten minutes later, after pacing around the lawn, the suave Brazilian diplomat returned, effusive with apologies. It was Jerry Bremer on the line, he said, referring to L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of Iraq, by his nickname. Bremer had called to ask Vieira de Mello to be the sole non-Iraqi to speak at a ceremony that Sunday to unveil the country’s new Governing Council. Vieira de Mello wondered aloud whether to accept, whether Bremer’s request was simply an effort to make it appear as if the U.S.-led occupation authority did not handpick the council’s 25 members. But Vieira de Mello quickly added that he believed in the idea of the council. Giving even limited authority to Iraqis under a framework conceived by the Americans, he said, was an important first step in the political transformation of Iraq. Bremer’s request spoke volumes about Vieira de Mello, who died yesterday in the truck bombing of the United Nations compound in Baghdad. He had arrived in the city in June with the fuzziest of mandates from the U.N. Security Council. Unlike other U.N. missions, where diplomats of his stature are given clear responsibility for nation-building, the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq meant that he was limited, in the words of a council resolution, to "facilitating" the reconstruction of Iraq’s infrastructure and "encouraging" international cooperation to aid the country. more at the link |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #11 "the poor guy was directly targetted" Because the truck happened to blow up next to his office? As for the blue flag, I doubt it had any meaning to the bomber. |
| Posted by: Raphael 2003-8-20 5:34:23 PM |
| #10 It is pointless to try to use rational thought to explain the actions of irrational thinkers. These idiots are fighting for their cause by blowing up oil lines critical for their economy, a water main critical for their largest city, and a humanitarian aid organization. At least the defeated Japanese generals just fell on their swords. In the middle east, the whole culture seems to be suicidal. |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-8-20 4:51:40 PM |
| #9 Raphael - they had a big ol' honking UN Flag atop the wall, clearly visible, and the facts seem to indicate the the poor guy was directly targetted |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-8-20 4:39:02 PM |
| #8 Attacking the UN does not make any sense. And yet the Islama-loons keep doing it. At the least, WANTING to do it. The original plot behind the 1993 WTC attack involved attacking UN headquarters. For better or worse, the Blind Sheik (Rahman?) decided it would make Muslims "look bad", so they decided to try to knock over the WTC instead. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-8-20 4:33:17 PM |
| #7 My theory is that the bomber thought he was targeting American forces. Attacking the UN does not make any sense. Any bets you won't see any more attacks on the UN? This was a case of mistaken identity. |
| Posted by: Raphael 2003-8-20 4:16:28 PM |
| #6 LH, my personal theory is that is was some sadistic bastards who simply enjoy killing people. AQ, Baathists, makes no never mind. |
| Posted by: Matt 2003-8-20 2:28:05 PM |
| #5 United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1483 and 1500 are why the UN and de Mello were targeted. |
| Posted by: Robert Stevens 2003-8-20 2:18:56 PM |
| #4 theories: 1. It was baathists. Theyre having trouble killing US soldiers, so theyre going after whatever they can 2. It was Baathists. Taking out Serge and the UN will weaken the coalition position in Iraq, and bring disorder. 3. It was Baathists, just hitting a target of opportunity 4. It was Al Qaeeda. They hated Serge cause of East Timor 5. It was Al Qaeeda. They hate the UN for reasons going back to the founding of Israel. 6. It was Al Qaeeda. By attacking the UN, they hope to stop the reconstruction of Iraq, which they fear very much. They DO believe in Wolfie's reverse domino theory, and will expend assets to stop it. 7. It was Al qaeeda - there was no reason for them to attack the UN, but they're just a bunch of loony jihadis to whom all kafirs are alike. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-20 1:31:52 PM |
| #3 Good article by Ralph Peters in the Post: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/3609.htm On the other hand, the NYT has no less than one editorial and four op-ed pieces all of which more or less say I Told You So. One of the op-ed pieces is by that great strategist and student of the Middle East, Maureen Dowd. On a quick read, only one (Freidman) expresses any sympathy for the dead. |
| Posted by: Matt 2003-8-20 12:05:40 PM |
| #2 "The support the west gave to East Timor when they broke free from muslim Indonesia is one of al-Qaeda's and JI's pet peaves" Good point. Very interesting. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-20 10:38:10 AM |
| #1 Here's an interesting tidbit on Mr. Mello: He gained wide praise for overseeing East Timor’s transition to independence after Indonesia withdrew in 1999. The support the west gave to East Timor when they broke free from muslim Indonesia is one of al-Qaeda's and JI's pet peaves. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-8-20 10:15:35 AM |