Iraq. The U.N. is no solution
Should the United Nations replace the U.S. in Iraq? Could this be a solution to the increasingly untenable situation the Bushies have gotten us into?
No. First off, this ignores the damage the Bush Administration has done in Iraq. Well golly yes it is a mess there, but I’m sure the U.N. will make everything better, goes the reasoning, yet this view brushes off responsibility the U.S. has, and should be accountable for.
Second, an United Nations occupying army is still an occupying army. People in Iraq will still resist it. To say this would somehow be better because U.S. troops wouldn’t be getting killed, is to ignore that troops of other countries would be getting killed.
Third, U.N. forces in Iraq would run the country. This is no better than the current situation where the U.S. runs the country. Iraqis should run their country without interference from any outside power.
Fourth, believing an U.N. force in Iraq would be free of U.S. control is naive. The U.S. under Bush will not permit any one else to control Iraq and will veto any attempts to do so.
Replacing one occupying army with another army in Iraq solves nothing. And endorsing such an idea is supporting war and occupation.