[Sabertooth]

From the Congressional brief at the house.gov link ( http://policy.house.gov/assets/def-peacekeepingissues.pdf. ) that TomGuy's posted at #41:

As of October 31, 2001, 43 U.S. troops were serving in seven U.N. peacekeeping operations. These were located in the Middle East (14 in two operations), the Western Sahara (15), Georgia (2), Kosovo (2), East Timor (3), and Ethiopia/Eritrea (7).

Does this definitely mean our guys are in blue hats?

If so, it could be that they're doing it to collect intel.

And Georgia is definitely a place where we need intel, given that a lot of the Chechen terrorists are up to no good there.

But if our guys are in blue, I still think it's a bad idea. It's a perpetuation bad precedent, the next time we get a bad President. It's also a bit of a mixed signal, given President Bush's speech of September 12th, where he warned the UN they risked irrelevance if they waffled further on Iraq.

If this is a "put up or shut up" moment for Kofi & Co., why entangle ourselves further in the meantime?

[xzins]

I'd have to really balance it, Saber. If the UN is there offering plausible deniability and cover, and all those places are islamic hot spots, then I would definitely say, "campaign be damned"....I need people on the ground collecting data.

Besides....and this is the nefarious part....given Kofi's affinity FOR THE TERRORISTS, I'd want my guys watching "his" troops that are in regions near where MY troops were stationed. The UN will backstab us with the terrorists. I'm convinced of it. They need someone watching them.