SNIP

>The Bush administration failed to understand the symbolism of European troops occupying Baghdad. This would have been liking sending British peacekeepers during the American civil war.

I agree about the symbolism. I think many wanted someone - anyone to step in and remove Saddam but they also wanted those forces to immediately depart once the job was done. I don't think anyone in Iraq envisioned the country building scenario that exists today. I disagree about your analogy. There is no analogy there. During the civil war, there was no genocide, abuse of human rights, or threat of wmd of any type which woud require the world to stand up and take notice. At that point in history, countries were basically looking out only for their own self-interests. Your analogy suggests that the UN should not send European peace keeping forces into any middle eastern country, and if that is true, what about individual states in Africa as well? Do we allow abuses and genocide to continue so we don't hurt the sensibilities of the populace? Would the populace prefer the genocide and human rights abuses to continue rather than have European troops on their soil? I would suggest that those individuals in countries suffering would disagree - I hear them asking all the time on the news and PBS specials for the UN (and sometimes the US specifically) to step in and provide security.