UN Solution for Iraq?

Niall Ferguson generally has a fairly intelligent stand on the question of solutions. This time he is completely out to lunch.

For these reasons, I see only one credible alternative to Bush's strategy: U.S. forces should hand over responsibility for Iraq's security not to the Iraqis but to a new force provided by the United Nations.

The challenge would certainly be a daunting one for the U.N.'s new secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon. With about 74,000 troops already committed to 18 different peacekeeping operations around the world, the U.N. is far from ready to take on the world's No. 1 trouble spot. And, of course, there are many people who would choke at the very idea of a U.N. bailout of an American undertaking they opposed from the outset. Indeed, Bush himself might find it pretty hard to swallow.

Right. That makes sense. The UN who has been incapable of pulling up sufficient military forces to do anything, who has this habit of hiding in their compounds while the place goes to hell, who perpetually leans very heavily on the US for any actual fighting that must be done, is the solution? Give me a break.

The only reason I find it hard to swallow is that it will end with the US military continuing their presence, but under a bureaucracy that is highly divided on how to get it done correctly that it will ensure that more US troops will die for no increased insurance of success.

The idea is to succeed in Iraq, not pass the failure on.