What Should Be The Role of the UN in Iraq?

President Bush has been pushing for the UN to send peacekeepers to Iraq. So far the UN has been reluctant to do so because Bush is unwilling to relinquish any control over security or over nation building in in that country.

I have been thinking that regardless of any promises that the Bush administration makes, the UN should not join the him in Iraq. The UN should only take on that job if it has the authority to carry out its mandate, and if it can do so under those circumstances that it usually deems necessary for success.

The big problem with Bush is that he may promise the UN the control it requires, but once the UN troops are on the ground, he will do exactly as he pleases: Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz will be calling the shots. We have watched him time and again promise to do one thing and then do the exact opposite. His word means nothing.

Bush has blown up a sandstorm in Iraq, and he's up to his knees in the stuff. It looks more and more like he will soon be up to his Adam's apple. His worldwide credibility is headed toward zero. If the UN partners with him, it will be in the same fix. It will make itself, even more, the target of the Islamists and an object of mistrust throughout the Islamic world. When Bush is out of office, someone is going to have to clean up after him. That will be the time for the UN to take a hand.

I'd like to know how others see this situation.