...that is the question
To withdraw or not to withdraw from Iraq, that is. Although I was opposed to the war, I was long of the belief that once we were there, we had to stay until the situation stabilized and at least try to fix as much as we had broken. Lately the chorus for withdrawal has gotten louder, making the argument that prolonged U.S. deployment there actually fuels the insurgency rather than quells it.
I'm kind of agnostic at this point; whether to pull out or not seems to hinge on whether Iraq would be better or worse off, and I can't really tell which it would be. Juan Cole offers a modest proposal: pull out and have the U.N. take over peace-keeping operations, with full authority to fight the insurgency. I find it intriguing.
UPDATE - 6/23/05 - David Brooks makes a not-frivolous argument for sticking it out.
I'm kind of agnostic at this point; whether to pull out or not seems to hinge on whether Iraq would be better or worse off, and I can't really tell which it would be. Juan Cole offers a modest proposal: pull out and have the U.N. take over peace-keeping operations, with full authority to fight the insurgency. I find it intriguing.
UPDATE - 6/23/05 - David Brooks makes a not-frivolous argument for sticking it out.
Labels: Iraq
posted by honestpartisan | 1:52 PM
4 Comments:
Ever since the Dutch peacekeepers in Srebrenica were overrun, I've felt a little leery of putting UN troops anywhere that they would have to contend with serious military opposition. Not that I have a better idea... Except maybe giving Iraq to Turkey as part of a neo-Ottoman empire, but the Iraqi Kurds would probably be against that.
The U.N. has no signifigant military forces of it's own. Other nations can marshall a small number of troups, but it is the U.S. or no one who will fight the insurgents in Iraq.
Cole proposes that the UN recruit troops from various countries. I don't know how workable it is either, but I'm really feeling like the status quo is not a viable option and ideas like this can be useful to start a discussion.
The math works out pretty simple. Something like 45% of the worlds military budget is spent by the U.S. Of the remaining 55%, a goodly amount is by Governments that we certainly don't want in Iraq or would simply have to interest being there (Iran for the former, China for the latter.)
A good amount of nations that are left capable, Britain, Australlia, Poland, Japan already are supporting Iraq and are unlikely to do more under U.N. control.
Add in that I think it unlikely that the U.N. would be more welcomed in Iraq than the U.S. is and I don't see any utility for this solution at all.
The best we could hope for would be the U.N calling the shots and us still doing all the work.
However, since my analysis of Iraq is that we are making signifigant progress there, I probably don't share the basic premise that you have that the status quo is not a viable option.
Post a Comment
<< Home