January 17, 2004

UN Troops in Iraq: Why?

I'm still chewing over SDB's recent broadside and have another article in drafts but I thought this referred article deserved its own commentary.

If Iraq has reclaimed their sovereignty, why would there be a need for UN troops? Even under the most uncharitable construction of the proposed regional caucuses for the interim government, how is their legitimacy in any way inferior to Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe, or Saparmurat Niyazov?

Furthermore, Iraqis have already made it clear with high explosives that they do not feel the UN is a neutral organization. Since neutrality and legitimization is what the UN is supposed to be putting on offer, what's the point? At best, we'll get into a Somalia situation where those who are most mistrustful of the UN will turn from just one of a number of competing factions into the enemy which cannot be permitted to gain legitimacy.

The UN has its own legitimacy problem in Iraq since it turned tail and ran instead of asking for a mixed french/german brigade to ensure the safety of its operations there. As the US has, the UN will have to pay for that mistake in future blood. There is no point in doing it in Iraq though. The stakes are too high and the risks are too great.

Posted by TMLutas at January 17, 2004 02:51 PM