Tracy,

>Putting aside how it all came to pass (there are many arguments on many sides on that issue), what do you see as the best path to take as far as the Iraqi citizens go? What will benefit them the most now and in the future? Will the answer to that also benefit the neighboring nations? What about the Islamic world? What about the non-Islamic states?

As far as the Iraqi citizens are concerned, what they've got now is what was foisted upon them and they desperately need peace and tranquility and security for the future no matter who/how it is delivered.
But one thing is certain - the U.S. cannot and will not leave until a easonable measure of that is clearly and stably in place. The Congress is belly-aching about all that dough needed but we ALL KNOW that it really is all 'show' and that the money simply MUST be spent to get the job done. There is NO CHOICE, at least as long as the U.S. wishes to remain a good and honourable member nation of the planet earth.

>
>I'm afraid that if the UN does not participate, the old argument that 'Bush acting unilaterally without the UN invalidates the UN' will arise again. If the UN does not step in and participate in building Iraq, there is no incentive for the U.S. to participate in the UN in the future. It could be the continuation of the downfall of the UN.
>
I don't think you've got this one quite right...
President Bush DID act unilaterally and is reaped what he sowed. President Bush DID tell the world that the U.S. could and would 'get the job done' with or without willing partners. President Bush and his staff then went around quietly BUYING "support" from 'a coalition of the willing numbering over 40 nations' with in fact 4 actually doing anything of substance in the actual war and immediate aftermath.
Now, with more casualties post-conflict than during the conflict and things not improving at any reasonable rate, President Bush "wants" the ah-hem... "participation" of the U.N. That "participation" is limited at this time, apparently, to the role of lackey/servant/sycophant. That members of the U.N. find this hard to swallow shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. This would be the case EVEN IF the whole of the U.N. had endorsed the war in the first place but of course is further aggravated by the U.S.'s actions at the U.N. that led to the war in the first place.

At war's start the U.S. saw no need for U.N. sanction, essentially snubbing the U.N. and indicating that it was of little practical use.
Now it wants the U.N.'s "participation", which in itself is a strange turn of events given prior rhetoric. But what makes it even more curious is that there is virtually no recognition of the U.N. having any 'value' except as a source of money and manpower to get the job done. Essentially a continuation of the formerly expressed 'the U.N. is of little practical use'.
President Bush continues to be guided by the CABAL (Wolfowith/Rumsfeld/Perle/Gingrich et. al.) and the CABAL wants dissolution of the U.N.
What the CABAL has essentially set up is the situation where IF the U.N. obliges, then the U.S. has established full control of the U.N., and if the U.N. refuses then it establishes itself as 'of no practical value' (to the U.S.).
A little bit of contrition and a teensy bit of 'power sharing' with the U.N. would have made a huge difference, but as long as the CABAL is in control that is NOT in the cards.
The best hope for both the U.S. and the U.N. is for President Bush to purge the CABAL as soon as possible and then set about mending the fences that have been smashed by that group.


SNIP