Better UN than US administering Iraq

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Better UN than US administering Iraq

By Helena Cobban

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. – The US intervention in Iraq, which was earlier sold to the US public as a potential "cakewalk," has instead turned into a damaging quagmire. The least- bad choice now for President Bush is to hand the administration of Iraq over to the United Nations. As I had earlier predicted, the US engagement in Iraq has turned into a Vietnam-style imbroglio. The question now is: What can the Bush administration do so that it won't dig itself even deeper into desert quicksands?

Continuing the present policy of trying to administer Iraq nearly unilaterally offers zero foreseeable chance of success for two reasons:
First, the casualty toll continues to mount. Twenty-nine US troops have been killed in combat since Mr. Bush declared hostilities over on May 1 - and an additional 42 have been killed in "noncombat incidents" in Iraq. (Many of these incidents were related to the climate of insecurity.)
Second, there is the cost of the massive and ever-lengthening US troop presence in Iraq. The Brookings Institution's military specialist Michael O'Hanlon has written that even if Washington can secure 20,000 to 30,000 troops from other allies (in addition to those already sent by Britain), "125,000 to 150,000 US troops could still be needed for a year or more - with 50,000 to 75,000 Americans remaining in and around Iraq come 2005 and 2006."
That seems a fairly conservative estimate. But sustaining a deployment of such a size in faraway Iraq will be a huge cost for US taxpayers.
More

What is your opinion is it time to get thwe UN involved? To what extent?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,038 • Replies: 39

No top replies

Long past time. Although it would be no guarantee of security, Pakistanis, Indonesians, Bengalis--any number of available muslim troops could provide security without the constant suspicion and accusation by Iraqis about American disrespect of their values and insults to their women. I heard a GI interviewed on NPR who said an Iraqi man confidentially told him that they all "know" that the goggles GI's wear to combat the constant dust allow them to see through the burka, an insult to their women. When the GI offered to let him put them on so that he could see for himself that this is not true, the man rejoined that he knows there is a secret button, and that he is not fooled. There is an undercurrent of mistrust would might well be mitigated by a more cosmopolitcan peace-keeping force; Morrocans, Algerians, Pakistanis, Indonesians, Bengalis, Uzbeks, Kazhaks, Azeris and Albanians could all serve, and do so without offending American foreign alignments, while reassuring Iraqis of their respect because they are muslims. It would also greatly relieve our financial burden.

0 Replies

Well, yeah, but we went in there over UN objections. Can we really palm it off on them now?

0 Replies

This should have been done in the first place, but no, the Bush Regime knew better. Now the theme is "How the hell can we get out of this with as little shame as possible?"

According to what I read today, it seems like Bush wants to fob the job off on NATO....

0 Replies

IMO the UN would be glad to take it off our hands if for no other reason than putting a burr under Georgie's Saddle. But in reality they could not refuse. As far as the Bills and the major peacekeeping activity we are stuck with them UN or not. At least for the foreseeable future.

0 Replies

According to Rummy, the US is trying to get "volunteers" to help with the US occupation of Iraq. Not many countries are jumping at this great opportunity. c.i.

0 Replies

AU1929:

Nah, I'm content to have him continue the same job he's doing!!

Stick with it Georgie, we expect the same performance from you that you have always shown!! Ask God, he'll help ya with it!! If all else fails, ask an old friend Drunk

Anon

0 Replies

Anon
I would say the same thing if the damage he was and is inflicting was only to himself. However, we the citizens of the US will have to pay for his folly. While he struts around and acts macho.

0 Replies

The UN would be stupid to take this on.

That being said under the right curcumstances they would.

0 Replies

I do believe the UN would be willing to step in, the problem is that would include France and Germany and I am also sure Bush really would't like that.

0 Replies

LOL, the UN will get in anything the US allows it to, and yes I bet some wouldn't like that France and Germany would be in on it.

But my question is:

If the UN took over, who would pay for it? The UN doesn't generate it's own income so I figure the US is stuck with the bill anyway.

0 Replies

The United Nations has a peace-keeping fund, and although the United States might eventually foot most of the bill for UN participation, cash flow is everything, and this could substantially ease the cash hemmorhage we're currently experiencing . . .

0 Replies

Yes, but would they commit the fund to this? Methinks we'd have to negotiate (besides thinking the UN ain't gonna get a shot at this for a while).

0 Replies

That's the real consideration here, whether or not the Shrub's gonna go for the idea. He's so puffed up with himself right now, that i doubt he'll consider it any time soon . . .

0 Replies

Thing is, I just don't share the negative outlook on the post war phase. I'm pretty optimiztic about it.

Going to war was a move I consider among the worst of all time, now that it's done I'm hoping for something good to come of it.

Of course that would bring "told ya so"s and strengthen the case for a future war but heck, it'd be nice to finally get nation building right.

0 Replies

so how we doing in Afghanistan?

0 Replies

"Bout as well as we can expect to be in Iraq in the same period of time . . .

0 Replies

Apples and oranges IMO. Afghanistan was "retaliation". Iraq is supposed to be a "beacon" that will cause "a ripple effect". I hope there is more motivation to succeed in Iraq.

0 Replies

the countries bombed by the US since the end of WWII
China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-99
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
In how many of these instances did a democratic government, respectful of human rights, occur as a direct result?"

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Apples and oranges IMO. Afghanistan was "retaliation". Iraq is supposed to be a "beacon" that will cause "a ripple effect". I hope there is more motivation to succeed in Iraq.

I hardly consider that to be to the point. Doctrinal statements mean nothing when it comes to "nation building," it is action, and action alone which can give any evidence of the probable success of such a venture. Afghanistan was promised "nation building"--and nothing has been accomplished. So far, feck-all has been accomplished in Iraq. It is a good thing that you hope for the best; it is not a reason to believe that the best will occur, however.

0 Replies

Better UN than US administering Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know