onetime2

I would take that bet in a heartbeat. No way could they cobble together a coalition of troops sufficient to quell the claims that it's a puppet force of the US. Any US presence in the ranks would nullify any belief that the UN was in control.

Not that it matters since it would never happen. But, the insurgents do not want free elections and the UN would be trying to accomplish exactly the goals that the insurgency is trying to stop.

As an Iraqi government is formed they will be under pressure from their citizens to quell the insurgency. If they want to stay in power they will need to at least look like they're making progress.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Zeld2.0

Given that the Arabs supported the U.S. against Iraq in Desert Storm, they would probably under the U.N. (though obviously on diferent terms)

onetime2

And what proportion did they make up of that force? And how willing were they to go into Iraq back then? Answers: Not much and they weren't. It will be no different today. In fact it would be worse today.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Superbelt

In general poorer nations will contribute troops to the UN rather than monetary payment for their membership.
Pakistan is the largest troop contributor followed by Bangladesh and then Nigeria.
Link
Desert Storm had America at the lead, not the UN. A UN led force will see the surrounding arab nations contribute the lions share of troop strength. None of Iraq's neighbors want that place to be destabilized for any period of time, and they will rightfully fear a dictator grabbing power from the weak government we set up. It will be in their own best interest to contribute to the nations stabilization.

onetime2

Good luck convincing them of that. I don't think it will happen. Too many intercountry rivalries, religious edicts, historical suspicions, etc, etc, etc.

Even if you were correct, the grand total there is 45,000 from all the countries listed. That force is far too small to provide security and if you look at only Arab countries it will be considerably smaller.

The only plausible solution is for Iraqis to take control themselves. They were able to field an army of over 1 million troops in the 90's so they can easily create a security force of a hundred or more thousand. As soon as they are fighting for the security of their own country under their own leaders they will succeed. Attempting to integrate new forces and new leaders into the election process will only delay it and give the insurgents more time and opportunity to proliferate.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Zeld2.0

If it is too small, then obviously they don't like what's going on

It would be the same as our country not sending soldiers to a country it doesn't want to despite there being a problem there

Same shit, different countries

But I think what maters about Arab troops is the fact that militants will think twice about shooting at another Arab - it doesn't help your cause when you're killing your own people. And if there is a show against these militants by their own country, they'll think twice about their cause.

It would be similar if American troops had to occupy a town or city to keep the peace say, after a riot or something - how many of thsoe rioters would think about shooting another American soldier? Most would at least think again

onetime2

I don't have a clue as to what you're talking about in the first three sentences.

For the rest, that's a ridiculous line of reasoning. How many Arabs have been killed by insurgent action in Iraq? If your reasoning was correct however, would it not also follow that these militants would be even less likely to fire on fellow Iraqi Arabs? If so, then getting the Iraqis up to speed in security is the best possible scenario and, coincidentally, the current plan.

As it stands, the insurgents do not want free elections nor do they want Iraq reformed because if it is that means the US was successful. Iraqis are the best solution to the security problem because they know their country. They know their people. They know their history. They will be effective once they commit to it. They won't commit to it until Iraqis are in charge.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Zeld2.0

My first three lines were intended to mean that if they don't send too many troops, then they probably don't are / dont want to in the first place because they don't like what is going on or what not.

And Iraqis aren't the main target of insurgents - the Americans are. They know they won't get too many supporters if they kill other Arabs - why would other Arabs help them if they were the targets? I don't get how its ridiculous line of logic when you even said that is the current plan (what was ridiculous was dissolving the Iraqi Army then suddenly trying to reform it).

And of course Iraqi's are the best solution but at the same time, there are those who think they're just puppets. That is largely because of the large U.S. presence there in the first place. Arab troops will ease the tension for the more moderate peopl. The more you isolate the extremists, the more likely they'll fail.

You have to present the image

Bush41 assembled a coalition with Arab countries in suppot - hence it was popular among the countries and those being liberated. Had he went in gung-ho with no Arab support, would they have viewed it the same?

If you build a bae of Arabs in an Arab nation, what can they say against their fellow people? Not much, compared to what is done against Americans