Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic A thought, re: Iraq

Something I thought it might be worth kicking around...

Why doesn't the US turn Iraq over to the UN?

So, okay. Historically, the UN doesn't have the best record when it comes to effective management or peacekeeping. And it would mean keeping at least some of our troops there as part of the UN coalition.

On the other hand, it's the UN's job to deal with stuff like this. And there's something to be said for making it the world's problem instead of our problem. Having an international group take over means that we wouldn't be so easy to blame. It might let at least some of the wind out of enemy sails. We could get rid of Blackwater (the UN wouldn't want them there anyway).

It could save lives, help restore our international reputation, and, as it happens, save us hundreds of billions of dollars.

What do you guys think?

Well, it's my unprofessional opinion that the UN sucks As for saving us billions of dollars, where exactly do you think the UN gets its operating funds? Us, mostly.

They make things worse, in general. Look at the "oil-for-food" deal, where the UN was dealing with Saddam under the table to enrich select UN officials. Look at the sex scandals that seem to follow UN "peacekeepers" everywhere they go. Look at the permanent refugee camps, or the way they ignored genocide in the Balkans. Oh, and don't forget the tsunami, a few years back -- the US and Australia were right there with practical assistance, while the UN was still debating where to hold the meeting about what to do about possibly sending something or another to the affected countries. Whilst simultaneously berating the US for not sending enough money to the UN for them to squander and steal.

Not that I'm bitter

PJ
US out of UN; UN out of US!

Right on, Pam!

Nan

Well, I think the UN probably figures why should it step in to solve the mess the US made? The US was pretty vocal about how useless the UN was for trying to stop them making the mess in the first place. Now that the UN - and quite a few of the rest of us - has proven to be right on the button with the results of an ill-conceived and executed invasion plan and the US finds itself mired in its own disaster, they suddenly want the UN to throw them a rope? You could see why some countries are a tad bitter and sceptical about offering aid now when the US - not politely - told them they could do without their help to begin with and that they should butt out.

Having said that, I have to agree that the UN would be fairly useless at sorting it out if they decided to give it a go. Which is, of course, the true tragedy for the poor Iraqi civilians. That now no one has an answer.

LabRat

while trying to get a better reputation is a goal the goverment should have, i agree with labrat that the war is not their problem to solve.

I think the US and the other forces that allied with the Iraqi invasion should clean up their own mess. Not that it's going to be easy but I don't think calling on the UN to do their work for them is going to help matters either.

Sorry.

Paul, in the abstract I think this is a really good idea. As well, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the notion that the UN shouldn't tackle it because they didn't create it - one of the UN Charter obligations is to get involved in situations like this.

But the reality is that they often have not. In the last 15 years especially, they have looked the other way when the crises are even more extensive than is Iraq.

Last year, W. Bush did seek UN help - he wanted the UN to take over in Iraq. (it was a bit more complicated than that) The UN turned him down. Probably for two reasons imo - internal UN politics, and also the difficulty of raising troops for such an action.

The UN is currently in Afghanistan, a task which they handed over to Nato. Right now, Canada is seeking more troops from Nato countries to spell us for a bit. This is proving really difficult to do. So, I'm thinking even if the UN had agreed to Bush's request, they wouldn't have been able to raise the resources to do the job.

Were the US to succeed in getting the UN to take over in Iraq, Canada's contribution would be no different - we simply do not have the troops and equipment. Nor would public opinion support it.

Some countries do hire out their military to the UN - it's a source of cash for poor governments. But some of those governments either don't pay these soldiers or pay them so poorly that they have been left to their own devices which has led to some serious abuses carried out by "UN" soldiers.

AT any rate, going to the UN should be a good idea. It has at times been so in the past and may be once again. If the UN would sign on, given political reality it wouldn't end the problem but it *would* remove it from the Americans who could wash their hands of it. (like Pontius Pilate ) Oops, must be the approach of Easter that led to that similee

Of course, this doesn't mean that Americans shouldn't try nor that the UN shouldn't either.

c.

Pam speaks for me.

Even if we did hand it over, all that would happen is that all the soldiers currently there would swap their normal helmets for blue ones and become easier targets since blue really stands out. The US always supplies almost all the troops anytime the UN goes anywhere. That wouldn't change anytime soon even if it were a non-controversial deployment.

I'm with Pam. I don't like the UN. I don't trust the UN. I think they'd mess things up worse than we could imagine.

Tara

I can't believe I'm defending the UN here, because I agree that it's riddled with corruption and that its internal politics often make a mockery of its charter obligations. It is very difficult to take it seriously these days.

That said, it still is an institution with many sincere and dedicated 'ambassadors' and some of its sub-organizations, like WHO, do important work. It remains a noble idea and goal, imo.

c.