The UN is the only body capable of bringing broad based help onto the situation. The US has shown over the past 2 years that it cannot do it… it has failed multiple times in bringing in more help for reconstruction. It’s coalition has deteriorated to the point where after this fall only the US and UK remain as significant contributors.

You’re right though that the UN turned tail after the bombing of their headquarters (so did most of the rest of the NGOs)… but it is time now to try again. The UN has to suck it up and get back in there and the US has to be willing to give that a chance to succeed.

As I’ve written before on my site… one ultimate solution to the constant problems of the UN and the decline of relevance of NATO would be a merge of the two. The UN needs a standing force that is able to react quickly and NATO needs to expand in order to maintain its’ relevance but do so in a way that does not upset the likes of Russia and others.

This mission in Iraq would be less about providing security and more about tackling basic infrastructure. yes they’ll need to be safe to be able to do it… but I think that if there was an obvious, highly-publicized effort to repair the infrastructure then many in the insurgency would melt away.

The UN is the only body that can bring the resources in. The Iraqi government needs to ask for that help, but at this time it can’t do much with it as its’ effectively paralyzed in parliamentary wrangling.

I know your feelings about the UN… but it’s all we have… and like it or not it’s the only way to get the World back on the Iraqi’s, and US’s side.

I was right there with you, until you (predictably) turned to your preferred solution: “Bring in the UN!”

A few problems with this:

1. The UN is nothing more than a very loose affiliation of independent nations. They have no “forces” to accomplish this mission, except those that member nations contribute on a voluntary basis. Those nations that are willing to participate in the stabilization and rebuilding of Iraq are, in fact, already there.

2. The UN has no unique knowledge or capabilities that cannot already be provided by the multi-national forces or the Iraqis themselves. Witness the debacle of the pitiful UN response to the Southeast Asia tsunami disaster, and contrast this with the timely, effective relief provided by the Australian, Thai, Singaporean, Japanese, and American militaries. If they can’t handle disaster relief, what makes you think they can do a better job in Iraq?

3. The UN was in Iraq early on, but turned tail and fled after a car bomb destroyed their headquarters. They complained that the security situation was too dangerous. Ironically, they had previously declined an offer of dedicated security from the Coalition forces.

Honestly, I don’t understand why you cling to this myth that the UN has this magical power to make everything better. Whenever I’ve seen “UN Forces” in action, I’ve come to the inescapable conclusion that the whole is considerably less than the sum of its parts.