It won’t work; it assumes a non-existant seperation between the “insurgents” and the citizens. The fact is, the majority of the Iraqis hate us and want us dead, sensibly enough, and every fighter you kill will be replaced by one or more citizens.
How big is Cyrpus? How many factions were there? How long did it take? Canada alone had troops in Cyprus for something like 25 years, and at the end of it all, how many people ended up dying? If that’s your idea of “success”, then I’d rather stick with the US, after all, they’ve only been at it for 4 years, a pittance compared to Cyprus.
What Rwandan “RoE’s” are you talking about? The UN did nothing in Rwanda because without an army there was nothing it could do. You need an army and an air force to do anything and if the US isn’t willing to provide it, as was the case in Rwanda, then you’re SOL. How many troops do you think you would have needed to save Rwanda? On whose planes are those troops even going to get there, who’s going to supply them and who’s going to pay for it all?
You could at least be honest and admit, as this poster has, that “turn things over to the UN” is essentially allowing another Rwanda. Aren’t Americans just charming?
You know, upon further consideration, I realize that it really isn’t your responsibility to establish the UN’s lack of success, It is the responsibility of the guy who wants to use the UN to estaablish its credibility.
And for what it’s worth, I wasn’t asking what the topic was about. I was asking what you were omparing the UN to in terms of peace keeping effectiveness. As far as I know, the UN is the only group to very many peacekeeping missions, making judging its success hard to impossible. All we have is its X% success rate, which with nothing to compare it to, so as far as we know it could be close to optimal, or so bad that it would be higher if the UN stayed home.
Here’s a list of UN peacekeeping missions. The success of each mission must be judged individually - but the comment on “how many people died” in Cyprus is misleading, since the point was the armed blue-helmets were deployed along the demarkation zone to prevent further conflict following the ceasfire, NOT sent in to stop the war. They were there for 25 years because of the lack of political resolution. And under those auspices, they were really rather successful, as there was no resurgence of the war.
The Rwandan RoEs I’m talking about are here, though I can’t find a more detailed report on them, but the point is there were 2,500 UN Observers, limited strictly by their Observer status.
Here’s the point: some troops have to be there to enforce peace. Most Iraqis absolutely despise the US and UK, which adds a layer of complication both to the operation, and on a wider basis adds to the highly negative opinions of the Arab world, the Muslim world, US allies, and the rest of the world. So replace the despised soldiers with people who are perceived as more neutral. Maybe they wouldn’t despise blue-helmeted soldiers as much, especially if they were drafted in from Islamic countries.
Furthermore, you don’t send in a bunch of guys with clipboards. You send in an authorised UN army, recruited from UN member armies, with robust RoE, and armed to the teeth.
Who pays for it? That’s a stupid question. The fucking assholes who caused the disaster, of course.
I think the US Army has a spot waiting for you in Bagdhad. While you are at it Canada can kicj in some ot their tax revenue to continue our mission in Iraq.
How much of the powerlessness of the UN is directly attributable to our refusal to respect it? When the UN agrees with us, we are perfectly happy to drape its legitimacy over our policy. When they don’t, we simply shove them aside and sneer.
I would drown them in hot oil. Your plan merely leaves us with a bunch of dead, wet kittens. MY plan results in tasty Kitten McNuggets!
“To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible,” Bush said./QUOTE]
Hokay. Whatcha proposing as a substitute for (throws dart at list of issues where Administration policy fits that description) gay marriage?
Here’s my plan: These whacked out muslim guys seem to have a problem with dogs, so instead of killing all the unadopted strays, we simply drop them off in Iraq. Pretty soon, all that’s left in Iraq are dogs and sane folks who like dogs.
Hey, it makes as much sense as sending in more troops. (Everytime I hear that phrase, I keep thinking of that episode of Futurama where the reporter says, "But people won’t be late for work, though. The governor lady says, ‘I’m sending in more trains!’ ")
My proposal is simply this-we kill Mohktar al-Sadr, and blame it on Sunni militias. Then we withdraw to fortified bases-and wait till the fire burns out.
As I saw on the Daily Kos website:
Bush asking the Democrats what their plan is for Iraq is like:
(Quote courtesy of new Congressman Chris Murphy.)
First rule of holes. Quit digging.
“The minute it became obvious this brick wasn’t gonna fly anymore, I dropped it like a hot potato.”
Reading that transcript reminds me of another weasel phrase:
A scapegoat is one who is assigned the blame rightly due to others (although usually a scapegoat is part of the problem). It’s contradictory to claim to be both “the decider” and a scapegoat, although I’m sure the intent was to make GWB appear unfairly put-upon.
Wesley Clark has had a lot of suggestions about how to better handle the Iraq occupation. Guess President Bush’s advisors forgot to point that out to him.
What? Wesley Clark? *That *dirty hippy? Shit, they might as well have solicited advise from me!
Don’t fall for it people. Bush said the same thing to Baker and Hamilton a year ago.