A sampling of United Nations related blog commentary
Juan Cole: “A reader with a US military background writes: “I noted your recent proposal for increased UN military involvement with some questions. The idea that UN involvement would reduce the violence due to its [being] relatively less partisan was probably at least partially destroyed with the UN building in August 2003 (where my unit was involved with rescues). Contributing troops to a UN force will neither end the conflict nor support a negotiated settlement on their own.” Cole: I am not advocating a passive UN “peace-keeping” mission. Rather, I’m arguing for a UN army with an active peace-enforcing mandate. I don’t deny it is a tall order. But then, the US military mission is a tall order as it is.”
Mark Kilmer: “Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, a regular commentator on FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume noted publicly a thought which had been bothering me of late. The President’s options with Bolton are limited, he admitted: “They’re going to have to deal with Senator Dodd (D-CT) or find some way to get around Senator Dodd, some kind of a gang of 14 thing, as they did on the filibusters of judicial nominees.” A way has to be found for the colleagues of Biden/Dodd to escape from their political game without embarrassing either Senator.”
Middle Earth Journal: “I don’t have a clue how the Bolton nomination is going to play out. Joe Gandelman has a good rundown on the thoughts of the pundits and a few thoughts of his own. Steve Soto wonders if the “nuclear option” is on the table. Joe summarizes the theories of why the White House continues to fight for the Bolton nomination.”