Re: The consequences of invasion (fwd)

In a message dated 7/22/2003 1:27:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
bstremli@binghamton.edu writes:
> What are the alternatives?  What has been> discussed by no one as yet, as far 
>as I know, is the likelihood of a UN> resolution which will replace US troops 
>with international peacekeepers,> and further, the likelihood that such an 
>outcome will be successful in> stabilizing the situation.  Perhaps if Iraqis 
>are granted self-government> now, and peacekeepers are introduced into 
>sensitive and border areas, the> mess precipitated by Bush can be contained 
>and gradually cleaned up.> Failing that, I don't see much of a future for a > 
>UN-administered> operation, either.
T. Ganesh made such a claim a couple of days ago.  I don't think its very 
plausible.  UN peacekeepers in the narrow sense are just about out of the 
question--they enter only if there has been a negotiated cease-fire, which is 
clearly not the case here.  The UN might be able to create an ad-hoc 
coalition--India, Russia, France, etc to send troops, but none of those 
countries (who would play a role in shaping UN policy) want much to be in Iraq, 
and would face considerable political costs if they should decide to do so.  
Furthermore, while the New York Times is recommending turning this over to the 
UN, I don't think the hawks are at all interested in doing so.  They would 
dread doing so on principle; perhaps also some of the claims of the anti-war 
movement that the US has specific agendas for post-war Iraq (dollar friendly, 
Israel friendly, etc) are true and the US does not want to discard that agenda. 
 Furthermore, Kofi Annan is calling for the US involvement in Liberia, and the 
hawks, never sympathetic to such missions and worried about the overextension 
of the US army as things stand, are trying to nix such an option.  Would US 
involvement in Liberia (increasingly looking like a very messy situation) be 
part of a quid pro quo for UN involvement in Iraq?
Steven Sherman