2 Comments

  1. Ban Ki-moon October 8, 2007 @ 7:55 pm

    There is a reason why no one else is making this suggestion.
    For i believe the UN will not be a huge fan of the idea.
    Several reasons come to mind. Firstly because it would be Afghanistan deja-vu. The US decides to strike and clean up a “terrorist-ridden” country, a quick in&out and leave it to the UN to finnish the details. But hey wait a minute, this place isn’t cleaned: they just swept everything under the carpet, the dirty dishes are still in the sink and we still have to mow the lawn. Because although afghanistan is mostly out of the newscoverage, the problems over there are far from over. There is no stable governement, democracy as we know it has yet to surface and the Taliban is far from gone (recent reports tell of increasing presence). So the un is still pretty bussy there.
    Meanwhile the US decides to start another war, because “OMG they have WMD!! Lets do a quick in&out and topple that Saddam guy” One would be hardstruck not to detect a pattern here.

    If the UN would set up a peacekeeping force in iraq it would undermine its authority. And give the impression the us can just start any war it wants to, we can just leave it to the UN to clean things up and do that whole rebuilding proces. “Ow and hey maybe meanwhile we can start another war. Iran, here we come!”

    Also don’t forget the UN never authorized the war with Iraq, so not only are they a bit pissed of but yet again it would undermine the security counsels authority.

    Furthermore, sharing the burden seems out of the question to me. Having any US forces still present in iraq whether solely or part of a un led peacekeeping force would keep tensions unnecessary high. I for one wouldn’t feel very safe patroling alongside US forces knowing they are target nr 1 for suicide terrorists.

    i have to admit your nr 3 argument stating: “Withdrawing without leaving a pacifying force would be a disservice to the effort of our troops.” enraged me a bit. It would indeed be a disservice but FIRST AND FOREMOST for the people of Iraq whom you promised peace and democracy.

    Remember also that the us is not a contributor to the UN led peacekeeping forces: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/factsheet.pdf
    they will provide money but not personel.
    Furthermore the PKForces are already stretched pretty thin and those PK-projects are very long term. min 5 years and easily 15 to 20 or even 30 years.
    I for one would be rather pissed of if the un would send a PKF to Iraq, knowing that mr Dick Cheney is already planning another war in Iran.

    Signed sincerely,
    Ban Ki-moon

  2. Anonymous May 13, 2008 @ 10:44 am

    I think that this ear is the worst thing that could of happened. We spent over a billoin dollars on this war and people are still gewtting killed by radside bombs mostly roadside bombs. I mean they are killing us more than we are killing them. Everyday on the news ssomeone has been killed by a roadside bomb or there convoy was ambushed and they died. I agree we should bring the troops hom and call it quits. Were not getting anything done. I think that we are causing more trouble over there than helping. We already know they hate the U.S. And Bush he will not pull the troops home untill this war is over. And by the time it is over we done had a draft and we are sending 17 18 year olds over because bush had deported there parients and they got killed so they half to make a living som way or another. This war is slowly going down the drain and Bush is using the plunger to make it go down quicker
    Sent By:William
    School: Foountain Fort Carson High School Dist 8

The US should leave Iraq and call in UN peacekeeping operations

Politics Comments (2)

When I wrote a few minutes ago about the conditions for runaway inflation being created by the current administration, I must admit, it was with some fatalistic perspective (hence the medieval sounding title of the article). I assumed the war in Iraq will keep going, and that the next administration will not be able to withdraw either.

However, I came to think of an idea which is so crazy that it may actually work. If the US should withdraw from Iraq and call in the UN to conduct peacekeeping operations, we would solve most of our problems. Let me go into some detail here:

  1. We can pacify the current civil war, but the US may not be the most appropriate force to take care of the issue. The UN may be welcomed were the US is being rejected (even if both have the same goals).
  2. Europe may actually help if the UN takes over, and we will share the burden of the war with other countries. If our goal is to help Iraq to become a democratic country, why not let the UN in?
  3. Withdrawing without leaving a pacifying force would be a disservice to the effort of our troops. However, if we are a leading part of a real international force in Iraq, the memory of our lost soldiers will be well served, we will be able to withdraw our reserves, and our soldiers will contribute to a great cause: democracy in Iraq.
  4. If we continue this war, we will suffer an economic collapse from under which it will take years to emerge.
  5. UN forces would defuse tensions with Iran (or else), and help us avoid an even longer and more painful war.

The last time this issue was brought up was in 2003. So far, I think I am the only one saying this. I will be happy to hear counter arguments. Let’s take this idea to Congress.

Franklin @ September 28, 2007

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Entries (RSS)
Comments (RSS)

68 queries.
0.982 seconds.

Politics blogs Politics blogs
Links to Site
%d bloggers like this: