Only the UN can give Iraq security and sovereignty

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1012360,00.html

One out of every four Americans wants US forces to withdraw from Iraq now, according to a Gallup poll. Some worry over the mounting rate of casualties. Others sense they were duped over the need for war. Some are traditional isolationists who want no American part in foreign affairs. Others oppose the Bush administration's new imperialism with its doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes and its contempt for other nations' opinions - the two vices which led to the attack on Iraq.

Whatever their motives, American calls for "US troops out" raise the same questions that rack the minds of Iraqis as they enter the fourth month of the occupation. What would happen if the Americans indeed pulled out abruptly? Would there be a security "vacuum" and who would fill it?

It is not too late for the UN to be given overall control over the transition to independence, as France, India, Russia and others have suggested. This would make it possible for UN peacekeepers to come in. The notion of US and British troops remaining in Iraq after an independent Iraqi government takes power in elections next year is absurd. A government that hosts invaders cannot be independent. But a government can retain UN-authorised peacekeepers for a period of several years without forfeiting its sovereignty, as for example Cyprus has done. If Iraqis want protection from potential instability when the US departs, the UN is the place to turn.