Rosner unintentionally hit on a major point that has been left out of the Iraq discussion by almost all involved - the possibility of a U.N. presence.

Right now, the U.N. would not have fit in well in Iraq. We've been on a war footing, and peacekeeping units are designed to move in only when a political "peace" has been established. But, in the event of a pullout, (which will inevitably precipitate some degree of increased chaos), we really should consider giving them a call.

First, lets get the obvious out of the way. Bush isn't going to do any such thing. He won't even use the letters U and N in the same sentence. We're in Iraq til he moves out and the next President assumes the difficulties of getting us out of there. Secondly, we all have heard about how poor U.N. peacekeeping forces are at actually keeping the peace. They are not a cure-all, but their presence in conflict-ridden areas does have a positive effect, and its better than nothing.

Any practical plan for pullout will be both gradual, and will leave residual US forces to fight terror cells in smaller, more focused combat missions. Peacekeepers could serve as a helpful security force to allow for continuing efforts at political reconciliation in Iraq, as well as giving remaining US troops breathing space for anti-terror actions.

In short, our withdrawel cannot be as unilateral as our invasion was. We need to reach out to the U.N., and hopefully NATO as well, for the extra manpower necessary to lessen the severity of what will no doubt be a bad situation. So hopefully we can elect someone with the international chops to negotiate a resolution, bring in allies, and get the Iraqi government to cooperate with any such plan. It may sting to have to ask for help, but what do we have to lose that we haven't already?

Very good points, I agree whole-heartedly. There will always be people who don't want to bring in the UN, and there are legitimate criticisms to be made about the UN and its peacekeeping abilities. But i think its time to realize that this is an international issue, and its time to involve the international community to a greater degree, if we can persuade them (a different issue altogether.)

I fear that the whole debate about a pullout is being muddled, though. I always hear the line "the Iraqis need to step up and take responsibility" or "they need incentive" and such. It seems to me that they are in a life or death situation, certainly a very strong incentive. Lawmakers in Iraq are under constant threat, their people being killed every day. I think that they are certainly trying, but it is complicated...loyalty to various factions, constant disruptions of terror attacks, general failure of institutions of government, etc. It is insulting, i think, to imply that the Iraqis are somehow not taking this seriously or something.

The simple plain truth of the matter, that everyone who calls for a UN or international Peacekeeping force is that NO NATION outside the US has the ability to deploy the 100s of thousands of troops needed to secure peace in Iraq. One need look no further than NATO’s efforts in Afghanistan. Even with US forces providing the bulk of the logistics and considerable muscle then remaining NATO members are hard pressed to keep even a few thousand troops on station.

The big huge military budget the US has, the one that dwarves every other nation on Earth’s is not spent on troops (as should be obvious) but on logistics. We alone possess the capability of deploying over 100,000 people halfway around the world and keeping them supplied through a war. NO other nation has a similar capability. Not Russia, not China (although they’re working on it), not France. NOBODY.

And even now the US’s considerable logistical capability is damn close to the breaking point between Iraq and Afghanistan. If any else big happens in the world (say N Korea going nuttier than normal) we are royally screwed.

So talk of a UN or international force to secure Iraq is fantasy talk. Such a force, absent considerable US support (ie keeping our troops in Iraq), would be undermanned, under equipped and out matched. It would make the debacle in Bosnia, where UN peacekeepers sat back and watched the slaughter, look like a Sunday school picnic.

Like it or not the US is the only military force on the planet that can do anything. And should be obvious from our current record in Iraq that ‘nation building’ is not one of them (at least not when they are as ineptly led as they have been for the past four years).

Bush has left as with absolutely no good choices in Iraq.

Well, I never said there were good choices - just Other choices. I never said we can muster 100,000 more troops. Just MORE troops. OTHER troops. The Iraqi's are the only one who can guarantee their own security in the long term. Foreign troops like ours are just playing wack-a-mole. The purpose of a UN force is never to act as the cavalry, but to do whatever it can to provide security while the locals sort things out. We don't have to ask for U.N. assistance, and Bush certainly won't. But our troops are exhausted, and we need to scale back the mission. Any measure of help, no matter how small, should not be turned down for the sake of national pride. Surely you don't think that we can handle this ourselves anymore?

Even if Bush could somehow bring himself to ask, what reason does the UN have to help? Even the nations that agreed to go into Iraq with us have pretty much already pulled their few hundred or so troops or restricted them to relatively safe missions. Only the UK remains in force and they’re in the process of drawing down.

NOBODY wants to go into Iraq. So where would the UN get any troops? The NATO nations are tied down in Afghanistan. Russia and China have zero interest in helping (and lack the resources to do so anyway). If somehow the UN decided to ask member nations for troops for ‘peacekeeping’ force for Iraq it’s unlikely they could muster much more than a couple of thousand troops. A token force that wouldn’t even be able to provide security for couple of square blocks in Bagdad, let alone the whole country.

And again, without US military logistics backing them, such a force could not be sustained in the field for more than a few months at best.

Add to that the fact that such a force would almost certainly be operating under the same rules of engagement that similar forces operated under in Bosnia. In other words, look at the slaughter but don’t do anything about it. The only time UN peacekeepers have had any effect is when political compromise has already been achieved and the fighting has mostly, if not completely, died down. Going into a situation where forces are actively engaged against one another the UN has been less than useless (unless the US been provided the muscle).

It would be nice if there was somebody else we could call to help alleviate our burden in Iraq. But, simply put, there is nobody else equipped, capable or willing to do the job.

We. Are. Not. Equipped. To. Handle. This. As I mentioned above, only the Iraqi's can choose whether they want to stop bombing themselves or not. As I said above, the UN is not cavalry, it is not an alternative to US occupation. It would be an assistance force that would facilitate a smoother pullout. Why a pullout? Because its inevitable. Because then Al-Qaida in Iraq will lose its primary target, and local Iraqi's like those in Anbar province today can get around to the business of prioritizing their well-being over foreign fighter's ideology. Or not. Maybe they'll keep fighting, but we can't stop them. As for the feasability of nations even being interested in the job, okay. You make the good point that no one but no one wants to touch iraq with a ten foot stick. But local nations all have an interest in maintaining stability in the region. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and India all want to keep iraw from boiling over, and from Iran gaining undue influence. And while Nato is indeed busy in Iraq, its not overstretched. But the main question - how do you convince nations to join up? Well, a long time ago last century presidents used to engage in international diplomacy on a scale that actually surpassed the PR motions that characterize this administration's efforts. There is no denying that Bush has always bypassed coalition building in favor of unitary action. When he's gone, thats gotta change, iraq or no iraq. Regardless, its worth a try. Let me repeat that - its worth a try. The war on terror will go on, and we cannot prosecute this thing alone. Its an international issue, and it needs international attention. Iraq is about to become an international issue, and the same applies.