Suppose the UN votes against war with Iraq. Perhaps then, the US should pull an about-face, and announce that:
-we will NO LONGER monitor Iraq
-the US will focus on its own defence, and the destruction of Al-Queda
-those Arabs states (like Quatar and Kuwait) can sign mutual defence agreements with the US-however, they will have to pay for their defnce
-Pres. Bush announces to the world, that hence forth, the US will not contribute any troops to UN peacekeeping missions
-our troops will withdraw totally from Saudi Arabia
-US policy will involve surpise attacks of any nations harboring terrorist groups which threaten the US
THe UN veto could be our “out”. We therefore avoid war with Iraq, we declare our self-interest, and we put the arab world on notice that it will have to deal with saddam. To my mind this is preferable to going to war.
Some of that stuff is counter-productive. For instance, how would withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia or making states like Qatar and Kuwait pay for defense? They are there because we find it in our interests to protect them.
Same thing with leaving it to others to deal with Iraq. If it’s really in our interest to get rid of him, then why leave it up to others who may or may not do so? And why stop monitoring Iraq if it’s in our best interest to do so.
I think your proposal is like cutting off your ear to spite your face.
Have you bothered to check how many UN peacekeeping missions the US has contributed troops to?