Juan Cole lays out his notion of how the ‘Kerry Policy’ in Iraq might work. Go read the whole thing.
No, really.
OK, in case you didn’t. Let me summarize:
* Iraq holds elections, gets UN legitimacy.
* Asks for UN peacekeeping force.
* The UN agrees, because force is under UN command, not US command, and because the Iraqis asked.
Here’s the result he hopes for:
This UN force, with vastly reduced US participation under a UN general, would give the new, elected Iraqi government time to rebuild its own armed forces and national guard. As effective Iraqi divisions were trained and equipped, they could begin relieving UN troops, allowing all the multinational forces, including those of the US, gradually to rotate out of the country as they were no longer needed. At the end of this process, Iraq would have an army of 60,000 men, able to maintain order in the country but posing no threat to neighbors. It would be an independent country, midwifed by the United Nations. The US would have finally gracefully exited the country, since it is unlikely that an elected Iraqi government would want foreign troops on its soil any longer than necessary.
But wait……there may be problems with this idea. He continues:
I would be the first to admit that the plan is not perfect. Sometimes UN troops have not performed very well. Iraq is a complex and highly armed society, and would be the biggest challenge ever faced by the UN. But I think the plan has at least a chance of working. And, it is hard to see how it could produce results worse than those produced by the Bush administration in the past miserable 16 months.
(emphasis mine – AL)
No shit, Juan.
Just because I know that I have known unknowns, let me start by tossing a question out to the crowd: Can any of you think of any single case where UN peacekeeping forces have prevailed in an environment where the participants really wanted to fight, rather than have the UN provide a fig leaf for armistice? I can’t. I’m hoping there is one…
Because I have one reply to Juan’s suggestion. Srebenica. Srebenica. SrebenicaSrebenicaSrebenicaSrebenicaSrebenicaSrebenicaSrebenica.
…of course if there are facts that suggest I’m wrong, I’m wide open to changing my mind and apologizing.
And I’ll point out that it keeps looking like the key issue, to Juan, and the other Democratic foreign policy experts is simply that it’s Bush’s policy. And so it cannot stand. We’ve gotta do better than this, team.
I really want to vote Democratic this fall. But someone, somewhere, has to show me a foreign policy that makes some modicum of sense for me to do it. Help me out, will you…
There hasn’t been any fighting in Antarctica.
A.L.
I don’t know that I can help you out one this one. The track record of the UN as you suggest concerning *peace keeping forces* and *financial liability* is abysmal to say the least. What lies at the heart of the issue IMO are three major problems.
Say we take the route suggested and the UN peace keeping forces to handle the situation:
1 – First question who should be the UN general and what qualifications are we looking for?
2 – Assumption we have a UN general we can all trust? Not one nation but multi-nations trust this entity and its’ decisions. Say things get really sour and things go bump in the night to the point we realize as well as other nations this is a no win leadership arrangement.
bq. a) Do we drop out and let what happens happen?
b) Do we toss them out and pick up where we left off?
c) Do we ignore the UN and continue trucking?
3 – Given the UN’s track record on *Oil for Food* another scandal in Iraq your fault my fault nobodys fault, who do you think would be made out to be the culprit?
IMO global recognition and global actions on terrorism are a necessity but not a requirement for leadership concerning the war in Iraq. First of all where ever you go and where ever you look it is the *US that provides the majority of troops and financial requirements for UN sanctioned interventions.*
IMO unless the US calls the shots it’s a bad move.
UN policy on ‘Terrorism’:http://www.un.org/partners/civil_society/m-terror.htm lot of goodies in there to debate.
If you want to know what the ‘UN does for us’:http://www.un.org/english/ start there.
I might add ‘NATO’:http://www.nato.int/home.htm is under the authority of the UN security council.
The primary problem with the UN conducting these kinds of efforts is, of course, that it has no sovereignty. That means, for one thing, that when the going gets tough, the UN gets going. Why wouldn’t it? There’s nothing on the line. If the UN were fighting a war, and it lost, who exactly lost? I’ll bet the winners would know who one, though.
Interesting side point: I was listening to CSPAN today and a Vietname veteran called in to discuss Kerry’s silver star. What this fellow said (and I haven’t verified its accuracy) is that when the Swift Boat that Kerry was piloting was fired on from the shore he gunned the engine to get the hell out of there fast. So fast, in fact, that his crew didn’t have time to secure their positions, and one fellow fell off the boat. Apparently Kerry went back to pick up this fellow, and that act of heroism is what earned him the medal.
Well, I can understand the reaction (if the story is true) and wouldn’t fault him for it, and he clearly did the right thing in going back for his comrade, but it’s an interesting metaphor for John Kerry’s career, isn’t it?
Like you, I’m looking for a reason to vote Democrat, and in fact I’m still a registered Democrat. But every time I pass LINK-TV when I’m channel surfing there’s a Pacifica show running John Kerry’s youthful anti-war speeches, and it’s really hard to tell he’s not some Dean or Kucinich supporter talking about Iraq. Well, Pacifica’s running the speeches for some reason, right? So just how ancient is this ancient history, if the moonbats have their hopes pinned on Kerry because they see Iraq reflected in those 35 year old speeches? Scares the hell out of me.
Cole:
“The UN Resolution should specify that UN troops in Iraq have the right to use force to enforce the peace. That is, they would not be mere observers or peacekeepers, but active peace enforcers.”
This provision have stopped the Srebenica incident, but it also, as Cole pointed out, not the role of a peacekeeper.
AL:
“Can any of you think of any single case where UN peacekeeping forces have prevailed in an environment where the participants really wanted to fight, rather than have the UN provide a fig leaf for armistice?”
It’s the of UN peacekeepers to ‘assist’ parties that desire peace, and thus if both sides do not desire peace, then of course they are not going to succeed, because that is not what they are supposed to be doing [1].
But with that all said, I’d agree that any plan to get other countries to support the Iraq occupation in a significant way is going to be very difficult to implement, because (IMHO):
– it will be seen as rewarding US unilateralism
– with US troops tied down in Iraq they will have a lessened ability to cause yet more trouble somewhere else in the world that they will want yet more troops to try and quell (but then again trouble has a way of making itself)
– if the US has more at stake in Iraq, it might do a better job of getting it done right (I think this is one of the failings of the current administration)
– non-US voters are generally against it (which pretty much trumps all the reasons above)
[1]http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/info/page3.htm
I would have to agree. The pissed off former rulings class of Sunnis, isn’t going to make peace under to the U.N. It won’t happen. I would say, like General Shinseki said, that we shouldn’t have gone in without several hundred thousand troops, which of course we didn’t have, so we shouldn’t have gone in.
Outside that, what to do now? The two methods that the U.S. has, is either the tacitus way (destroy all the towns that were, and are, the center of the violent usurpers.
Or, give sovereignty to these areas, such as Fallulah, and deal with the exporting of violence. (In addition you have the influx of other Islamists, who view the U.S and the current government as puppets, so inspiring a new jihad, as against Russia in Afghanistan.)
There isn’t a good answer. Probably the best answer available, with the troops available, is what is being done. Which Kerry probably realizes, and so isn’t really offering anything better.
I have a question. IS the UN one of the Contracting Parties in the Cease Fire Agreement between the Allies and the Iraqis in 1991
Or are the Combatant Nations the Contracting Parties?
I have been looking at
Laws of War :
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907
Particularly Articles 39 & 40
Art. 39.
It rests with the Contracting Parties to settle, in the terms of the armistice, what communications may be held in the theatre of war with the inhabitants and between the inhabitants of one belligerent State and those of the other.
Art. 40.
Any serious violation of the armistice by one of the parties gives the other party the right of denouncing it, and even, in cases of urgency, of recommencing hostilities immediately.
Dan
For those interested in Dan’s line of thought here’s a link for “Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907”:http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/1d1726425f6955aec125641e0038bfd6?OpenDocument
_’According to the views of the High Contracting Parties, these provisions, the wording of which has been inspired by the desire to diminish the evils of war, as far as military requirements permit, are intended to serve as a *general rule* of conduct for the belligerents in their mutual relations and in their relations with the inhabitants.’_
_’The High Contracting Parties, wishing to conclude a fresh Convention to this effect, have appointed the following as their Plenipotentiaries:’_
Two things on the issue for me:
1 – Who are the High Contracting Parties?
2 – Who are the plenipotentiaries?
Article 8. Contracting powers (plenipotentiaries) seems to indicate representatives that have a nations authority to enter into or denounce the agreements set forth in this document.
Where does Iraq fit into this picture?
Saddam (whom at one time was the official representative of Iraq) and his delegates are no longer in power. Iraq although a sovereign nation is still in the process of forming its’ government. Who / whom in Iraq has the authority to agree with Hague IV.
More importantly how does Hague IV have anything to do with terrorists / insurgents?
Section 1 Chapter 1 Article 1 clearly rules out terrorists by definition.
The contracting parties are the nations in agreement with (Hague IV). The UN is nothing more than a mediator.
This plan presupposes that there is nothing America wants from Iraq but to get out of it. I think this is wrong. (Though it does seem to be Kerry’s approach.) The Americans need a successful Iraq to impress the Iranians and other countries next door with the advantages of democracy and Western-style freedom in general (to the extent that the Iraqis are willing and able to adopt such values, of course). So handing this project over to those with contrary interests and practices is a bad idea. What the Americans need is help, but on American terms. That is what Colin Powell is already striving to get for George W. Bush.
So, attempting such a plan would mean an end to a general democratisation drive in the Middle East even if it worked. But I doubt it would work.
“The UN peace enforcing military mission in Iraq would be funded by a special fund, to which the US, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries would contribute, since it is in all their interests that Iraq be stabilized.”
It is not in the interests of the Wahhabi regime that Iraq be successfully stabilised on American terms. This is the first area where the plan founders: interest.
“I would be the first to admit that the plan is not perfect. Sometimes UN troops have not performed very well.”
What others have already said on this wonderful understatement is right.
“The Pakistani, Egyptian and other militaries are professional and have had experience with counter-insurgency against radical Islamists, and their governments are still there because they have won.”
Is this a very polite way of referring to the characteristic two track approach of torture and sponsorship (as with ISI and Al Qaeda) used by Muslim governments? If so, I would point out that it works from their point of view but not form the point of view of the Americans or of any sane American allies. It is part of the problem, not the solution.
What’s the alternative? The Americans and their real allies have at a bloody cost and with considerable mess worked themselves at last into a winning position. Democracy is being established in Iraq, day by day. So keep going and win, on American terms.
My read is that the plan is the UN plus the elected Iraqi government, vs. the “insurgents” (i.e., terrorists). I think it’s more like the role of the UN in the Korean War, than the UN in Cyprus or Lebanon.
In answer to your original question, I would suggest the UN forces separating Israel and its neighbors between 1948 and 1967, and their success is why Nasser’s demand that they leave was an unmistakebale indicator of his intention to wage war. (The 1956 war was largely the work of the British and French.)
As a second possible example, the UN forces in the Congo (later Zaire) after the coup against Lumumba. (Of course, looking back in the long run, the UN may well have been on the wrong side there.)
I don’t see how democracy is being established by the current process in Iraq, any more than peace is being established by the peace process in Israel/Palestine. You’re committing the same error we liberals did, of confusing transient rhetorical behavior, labeled a ‘process’, with facts on the ground.
Well, a UN force is still 100x smarter than a Muslim force.
I would rather wait for Godot, than the French!
What was their great contribution to the multilateral, multipolar forces in Korea?
A single Infantry Battalion!
The US had over 300,000, and the French provided a little more than 1,000.
Of course the Russians provided Migs and combat pilots. But they were for the North Korean side!
_it is hard to see how it could produce results worse than those produced by the Bush administration in the past miserable 16 months_
Oh really? I can easily think of numerous scenarios vastly worse than the current situation, for example anything that involves getting the US troops out of ther region before we have dealt decisively with Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
Rudi Giuliani solved New York’s major crime wave by building a police station in the middle of the baddest of the Bad Neighborhoods.
While there have been _tactical_ problems and weaknesses in the Iraq campaign, it is strategically brilliant.
Pulling out US troops at this point — even if there UN replacements are tactically brilliant, which is a very optimistic assumption — would be a strategic defeat of the first order for the US. Which is precisely why so many on the Left are agitating for a US –> UN transfer.
I support Bush because Iraq is so important, not the other way around.
Us old guys can never get Vietnam out of our heads. “The US had over 300,000, and the French provided a little more than 1,000.” Well, the French did have tens of thousands of troops in Vietnam at the time, so maybe they were stretched a little thin.
I got a lot of criticism for calling military action against Iran and Syria Michael Ledeen’s wet dream. Well, it sure looks like a description of the comment above mine, doesn’t it.
I got a lot of criticism for calling military action against Iran and Syria Michael Ledeen’s wet dream.
What are you, twelve?
AJL,
Perhaps now would be a good time for you to go on record with your preferred policies with respect to an Iran persuing nuclear weapons. Please include a Plan-B if you are unsuccessful at dissuading them.
We should remember that even if Iran was run by sane people, it would be developing nuclear weapons.
Let me rephrase that: If WE were in charge of Iran, WE would be developing nuclear weapons.
There we have it folks if you see a
homicidal maniac coming at your
family with a shotgun, simply
tell yourself if he were SANE
or if he were YOU he might have
still that shotgun.
Trying to figure out what the
point of this
“What if” is.
It should be pointed out that the U.N. has no military force, and never has had one. When you talk about a “failure” of the U.N., what you really mean is a failure of the nations that make up the U.N. Indeed, even Article 43 – which allows for the creation of “special agreement” military forces – has never been used. Again, if the U.N. fails at something its because the countries that make it failed at that task.
Greg,
In the early 1950s the French were seriously committed to “Indochina.”
Colt,
“(The 1956 war was largely the work of the British and French.)”
And the Israelis.
The U.N. really had no “role” in North Korea; indeed, all the U.N. did was to “recommend”* on June 27, 1950 that member states furnish South Korea military assistance.
*The actual term was “recommended”; as in the UNSC “recommended” that member states “furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be neccessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area.” – S.C. Res. 83
Pacifica’s running of Kerry’s old anti-war speeches is doing Bush’s job for him.
There will be no Democratic Party after this election. They are truly too stoopid to live. Doing Bush’s work for him.
Just goes to show how tone deaf the lefthas become. Or as we used to say in the day: out of touch.
Fear not. The Republicans are aching for a purge. I expect a new centerist party to arise out of these conditions.
Iraq will hold an election sometime in 2005.
The US will ratify the election based upon our agreement with the results.
The UN and all other participants may observe until they can no longer see straight.
George Bush will be responsible (just as he is today).
This would be intereting if it weren’t futile.
T. J. Madison,
Of course you are correct.
Now what if the Iranian people were running Iran? Might they not decide it is better to come under the American nuclear umbrella than have weapons of their own.
OK, I’ll bite. We tell them that the we will annihilate the first country in the Middle East to use nuclear weapons. We also tell them that if they continue developing nuclear weapons, we aren’t responsible for and won’t dissuade (might even aid) Israel from any conventional attack (Israeli nukes are also out of bounds). Third, we make our usual offer to help with supervised nuclear power generation, in case they (unlike the Bush energy policy) are contemplating a time the wells run dry. That’s just a face-saver, so they can claim to get something from the deal.
See that we don’t have adequate troops to conquer and occupy Iran, I don’t think that should be anyone’s Plan A or B or C. Your turn.
Well, the UN can’t see to get troops for Afghanistan and that is the “good” war. So what would they get for Iraq.
Also, one has to be cognizant of exactly what we would get from Europe. Europe has very little in the way of transport. Germany has maybe a few thousand troops available (prepped and trained) for anywhere. And France? How is that Ivory coast thing working out? Canada can barely keep what it has currently deployed in Afghanistan. Canada’s logistical support is in tatters at the moment.
So relaistically, the only troops you would have ar the ones you have at the moment. If the US troops are replaced, there is no one to replace them.
It would be an absolute disaster. But if that is what someone wants well, nevermind.
You will annihilate them? Well, now I know this isn’t AJL. Who are you, you faker!? 😉
Well, I can support that although it makes me feel strange, saying annihilate. As a former military officer, I know exactly what that means. The consequences of that action will be withus for a long long time.
Plan C (power generation), wasn’t that the one offered the North Koreans? And they used that technology to help accelerate their bomb development, didn’t they? So now they (NoKo) probably have WMD, and we have very, very few options.
Plan C, possibly very bad downside. They could just tell us what we wanted and continue to dev nukes while we break out the champagne and write articles on successful negociation. The inspection sort of thing doesn’t seem to be very efficient or effective.
Oh well…
AJL,
Uh, the Iraqis are electing people and are forming a representative government.
The Stoopidstinian/Israeli road map for peace requires representative government on the Pali side. Which is not in evidence.
Real progress in Iraq. No progress in Stoopidstan. Same reason.
Any way Andrew ve haf vays of keeping you quiet.
A Bush landslide in Nov. (the most optimistic polls give Kerry a 4% dead cat bounce. Lowest ever.) This is Kerry’s high point enjoy it while you can.
Winter Soldier will seal Kerry’s fate. Google it and find out what your opposition has prepared for you. It turns out that maybe 98% of what Kerry said was lies. The other 2% is unverifiable.
Historical fact. Kerry lied to Congress in 1971 about American atrocities in Vietnam. Lied about our troops.
Ya think that will make him look good? To Americans? To the troops?
Bush in a landslide – because Kerry is the alternative.
So AJL,
Please explain why if Israel is nuked they can’t nuke back? Because it would piss off the Arabs who are soaked in piss as it is?
You think they are going to do again what they did in 1933 – 45?
Uh. I don’t think your policy (even if I thought it reasonable) is enforceable.
You know the Jews are real touchy these days about calls for Jewish genocide. Perhaps some one ought to explain that people who are nerveous due to past experience ought not be trifled with. That is the wisest policy don’t you think?
Just leave the Jews alone. Why make them mad?
AJL,
Two points.
1. We have enough troops to conquer Iran.
2. We don’t have the troops to occupy Iran
Re: 2. Because of the state of their almost functioning democracy occupation is not necessary.
Their problem is with the executive/judicial. That can be fixed a few weeks after they stop looting their own country. Or we could shoot looters on sight.
In any case Iran is an easy fix. After its current government is overthrown.
Gary Gunnels:
Yes, I know – maybe you meant to address that to someone else?
AJL,
Hopefully we’ve already presented this message. On problems seems to be that you still seem to be thinking along the lines of purely state actors. Why wouldn’t Iran share a nuclear weapon with terrorist for untraceable delivery to the US? Would we then retaliate against Iran, even though we would never know for sure that they did it? Remember, the intelligence for this may be no better than that prior to the Iraq invasion. Are you ready to support the annihilation of Iran with little direct evidence? Are you ready to lose a US city for a non-preemption policy?
Wait a minute. You are for preemption in Iran, as long as we aren’t the preemptors. Can this be correct? This policy is a non-starter. There’s no way Israel will attack Iran with ground forces. The military need to stay home as a continued deterrent to Egypt and Syria. Jordan could even tip over at an time.
This is the Kerry proposal. I’m sure Iran could have this deal today if they want it. The problem is they keep ignoring the International Atomic Energy Agency and it will finally (hopefully) get referred to the Security Council. What are we supposed to do if Iran ignore the UNSC or they are protected by their various patrons on the UNSC? Can we do anything “unilaterally”?
I look at the risk as being intolerable. Under those circumstances you do what you have to do and we’ve got enough troops, especially if plans A, B, & C have already failed.
So far nothing much seems to be happening except that Iran is accelerating their efforts to join the nuclear club. This is the largest threat – a nuclear armed terrorist state. Winning this race to preempt this threat, either by diplomacy or force, should be our first and immediate priority. “Faster Please” seems an apt exhortation.
Lurker, Israel is no more likely to mount a ground invasion of Iraq than Bolivia. I meant to suggest Osirak redux.
How we have enough troops to take on a target that is much larger than Iraq, and probably more likely to defend itself, with our current military is hard for me to figure out. Even supposing that we could reach Teheran and deal with the mullahs there, the occupation would be a disaster. We would probably force the relatively liberal factions that hate the theocracy to turn against us out of nationalism. (I suppose Ahmad Chalabi has assured us he also has an Iranian government-in-exile ready, to match the Iraqi mirage, but he doesn’t.)
You know, we could also lose cities to the Pakistani and North Korean bombs. If the plan is to invade pre-emptively all anti-American nuclear powers, we’d better get the draft going quick.
This argument is entirely academic, where are these alleged troops going to come from? Not France and not Germany, that is clear. Can a serious argument be made that after seeing the effect the terrorists and kidnappers have had on Spain and the Philleapines that anybody else is going to line up to send troops simply because of UN auspices? Lets be honest here, many would be less likely, for exactly the reasons mentioned above. No nation in their right mind wants troops in Iraq under these circumstances under UN command, particularly when a handful of casualties sends many nations running home. Secondly, UN forces are hardly known for patrolling the streets and rounding up bad guys like the US is required to do. They will be locked up in their compounds tight, dont doubt it. Hence their presence is less than useless. In short, there are no troops and even if there were they wouldnt do any good. So lets start talking about scenarios that make a lick of sense in the real world.
AJL,
Then count me as confused. I’m pretty sure that we could mount a much better air attack on Iran than Israel. Why would we need to involve them?
Our military is supposedly capable of mounting two large wars simultaneously. Has this doctrine been changed? I can’t think of a better reason to pull out the stops than preempting a nuclear armed Iran. Frankly, I’m at a loss as to why Bush hasn’t asked for an increase of troops.
just like the huge Al Sadr rebellion? This is the same retreaded argument that we heard about Iraq and keep hearing about the “rise of the Arab street”. So far, there’s little real world evidence that it will ever happen – and much that it won’t – on the massive scale that you fear.
I haven’t talked with Chalabi, so I don’t know what he’s been saying.
The largest difference is that these nations already have nuclear weapons! You can’t see the difference? In fact, we tried to contain North Korean using many of the same methods that you propose for Iran. They’ve been proven to fail. You might want to reconsider them in light of real world experience.
Pakistan is certainly the more problematic WRT Kashmir. Fortunately, the Iraq invasion and its fallout has done much to shed light on their activities. They are also nicely balanced by India. Do you think Pakistan would provide nuclear weapons to terrorists given India is right next door? So far they are deterable, rational players. A fundamentalist coup could change this of course.
North Korea, as unsavory as it is, has never to my knowledge been tied to terrorism. This makes them a much more traditional player. As long as they stay within these boundaries, they can be tolerated, at least for the sake of Seoul.
Let’s consider Iran now:
There seems to be several reasons to treat Iran differently than the countries that you mentioned. Don’t you agree?
No one that I know of is in favor or the draft except certain Democrats who then want to complain about it. And who says an invasion is the first option? A credible threat of one may be sufficient to break loose the diplomatic log jam. Wouldn’t that be for the best? To bad Saddam got some poor advice from his friends. Hopefully, history will not repeat itself.
“Frankly, I’m at a loss as to why Bush hasn’t asked for an increase of troops.”
Sun Tzu.
It is wise to appear weak when you are strong. And vice versa. It upsets enemy plans and disperses their strength.
Mark Buehner,
The troops will come from Germany and Korea.
They will be American.
Iran I expect will be like WW2 France.
Locals will attack enemy supply lines when the Americans get near. They will also be eyes and ears.
>>Trying to figure out what the
point of this
“What if” is.
What I’m saying is that even if the there’s a revolution and the mullahs are thrown out, it would be unreasonable to expect work on nuclear weapons development to stop.
Why not have the Iranian nuclear facilities have a Tragic Accident? Those B-2’s cost 2 billion a pop. If they’re invisible they can provide plausible deniablity. If they aren’t invisible I should get to kick the people responsible for the B-2 in the groin real hard.
It is interesting to note that at one point secretary Rumsfeld commented that we couldn’t field more than 20% of our forces overseas and maintain training. That is what we were shooting for with Iraq and Afghanistan. What that means to me is that we have an 80%, or maybe more like a 50% ready reserve for Emergency deployment. The idea that we have all deployable forces out there is false. And yes, troops are being pulled from S. Korea and Germany and will eventually be rotated through either Afghnaistan or Iraq, or possiblly Iran or Syria. Remember, there were Syrian agents on the train that blew up in N Korea.
Chads
A.L.
I have one reply to Juan’s suggestion. Srebenica. Srebenica. SrebenicaSrebenicaSrebenicaSrebenicaSrebenicaSrebenicaSrebenica.
You might want to develop your argument a little more.
Yes, at Srebenica, Dutch commanders, under threat from superior Bosnian Serb forces, declined to endanger their force to protect Bosnian Muslim civilians. Would US commanders have done differently? As far as I know, there’s no precedent either way. What we do know is that in the Kosovo compaign, the US preferred to engage the Serbs from a very safe distance; and when they did eventually put ground forces into Kosovo, force protection was their first, second, and third priority.
Just by putting troops into Bosnia, the Dutch stuck their necks out further for foreign civilians than the US has any time recently. Rather than insist on overwhelming force, they voluntarily put their forces in jeopardy. Maybe they were unwise to do so. But if you’re wanting to get other countries to commit to Iraq, you might not want to sneer at them for that.