US out, UN in. Juan Cole argues for the U.S. force in Iraq to be replaced with a UN peace enforcement force:
The United States will eventually have to go to the United Nations and request that it send a peace-enforcing mission to Iraq, as the US military withdraws. The relevant model is the UNTAC experience in Cambodia, which, while it had substantial flaws, was also a relative success. In the long term, perhaps 5-10 years, the Iraqi government may develop its own military that could keep order. That development is far enough off, however, that there is likely to be a significant gap between the time the US leaves and the time the Iraqis can fend for themselves.
A US withdrawal without a United Nations replacement would risk throwing Iraq into civil war...
...The United Nations force put into Iraq should be a peace-enforcing, not a peace-keeping, force. That is, its rules of engagement should allow robust military operations to prevent the parties from massacring one another, and UN troops should always be permitted to defend themselves resolutely if attacked. Further, the United States should lend the United Nations forces close air support upon their request...
...All Iraqis would see the United Nations as having more legitimacy than the United States. The UN would be much more likely to be able to negotiate a settlement among the Sunnis and Shiites than is the US. And, the world has more troops than the US does. (The Europeans are over-stretched, so the force would mainly come from the global South. Iraq does not want neighbors involved, so South and Southeast Asia seem likely providers of troops.)
Would the Iraqi government accept a United Nations military mission? Almost certainly. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has often attempted to involve the UN, and would welcome such a development. The Sunni Arabs would also much prefer to deal with the UN than with the US.
Would the United Nations be willing to take it on? It would be a very hard sell. But remember that if the members of the military mission succeeded, they would have gained enormous good will from the Iraqi government, which would soon be able to pump 5 million barrels of petroleum a day. That is, participation could be worth billions in future contracts. The US could also provide substantial incentives. For countries like Pakistan, India, and Malaysia, such benefits could prove decisive.
Would the Americans be willing to cede Iraq to the blue helmets? It is not impossible. US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appears to want to draw down US troop strength in Iraq on a fairly short timetable, and even he must realize the need for a replacement. Of course, the Bush administration may well resist this move right to the end. But that makes this plan an ideal platform for the Democratic Party in 2006 and 2008. Instead of Kerry's vague multilateralism, let us specify an UNTAC-like mission for the UN. The entire world depends on Gulf petroleum; the entire world should step up to ensure security for Iraq and the region. The US will continue to have to bear a significant share of the costs, but these would become bearable if several allies shared them.
As recently as the 1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower still saw the United Nations as a noble project eseential to the welfare of the United States, and he denounced the 1956 invasion of Egypt by Britain, France and Israel for endangering the UN ideal. Ironically, the Bush administration's attempt to do a unilateral end run around the United Nations could afford the American Left the opportunity to make international cooperation and international law popular again with the US public. The alternative for Americans is to continue to squander blood and treasure on a task too big for one country, even the world's sole superpower.
Needless to say, Dennis Kucinich has been repeating the "US out, UN in" mantra for a very, very long time. Almost two years, in fact. His first formal statement about it was on July 22, 2003, as far as I can tell from my Muslims For Kucinich archives. Here are just a few other of his major initiatives on it:
October 9, 2003 - Congressman Kucinich's Iraq Strategy
January 10, 2004 - UN in, US out, Ten-Point Plan to Bring Our Troops Home From Iraq
July 9, 2004 - Iraq exit strategy language adopted to the Democratic platform
June 4, 2005 - Supporting the Woolsey Amendment for Withdrawal from Iraq
And, most recently:
June 15, 2005 - Bipartisan Coalition Calling on President to Set Plan For Beginning Phase-out of US Troops in Iraq
What can I say? Dennis, when you're right, you're right. [Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs]
In case anyone has forgotten, here we have some leftists demonstrating that they're not really opposed to the conquest of Iraq at all--they only oppose its conquest by the US. They're perfectly okay with the UN conquering Iraq, though.
This isn't really a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention, of course. As Al-Muhajabah points out, Kucinich has been advocating UN colonization of Iraq for quite a while. Before the conquest began, most of the "anti-war" protestors had no objection at all to a vicious and unprovoked attack on a sovereign country, just as long as the UN said it was okay--they were only upset because Bush was out to conquer Iraq for his faction of socialists, and not theirs.
Mind you, if I were an Iraqi, I would consider it a slight benefit if my country were turned over to a UN occupying army. Those silly blue helmets would make it much easier to make head shots on the stormtroopers wearing them.
9:42:46 PM 
|
|
