Send in the Blue Helmets

It was a rough start for Iraq's new viceroy.

The first order given by L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer III on assuming control of Iraq on Monday was this: Shoot looters first, ask questions later.

Then, first thing the next day, top Army brass in Iraq held an internationally televised press conference to countermand Bremer's impetuous (and apparently unauthorized) order. Maj. Gen. Buford Blount said: "We are aggressively targeting looters, but we're not going to go out and shoot children that are picking up a piece of wood out of a factory and carrying it away or a bag of cement."

Well, that's a relief. I guess.

Bremer's fantastical shoot-first policy was inappropriate and dangerous. But it should not distract us from the real issue, which is that U.S. governance of Iraq is in complete disarray. Much of the country still lacks electricity and water. Looting and arson go unchecked on the streets of Baghdad. And the terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia (and Chechnya) only add to the sense that we're in a downward spiral to chaos in the Middle East.

Now would seem to be the perfect time for Democrats in Congress to demand that the United Nations, not the United States, oversee peacekeeping, reconstruction and democratization in Iraq.

Yet ever since Senator Daschle was attacked as un-patriotic for mildly criticizing Bush's diplomatic failures just before the war started, Democrats in Congress have refused to criticize the President's foreign policy. Many politicians -- and even some within the NGO community -- believe that if they speak out they'll be punished by voters.

Fortunately, they're wrong.

If you go beyond the highly publicized trashings of the French and the Dixie Chicks and genuinely listen to the American people -- including unabashedly pro-war Americans -- they will tell you that they want the United Nations, and not U.S. troops, to make the peace in Iraq.

This isn't just my gut instinct. A mid-April New York Times poll found that over two-thirds of the public wants the UN to be in charge in Iraq. And focus groups I observed of swing voters ("Reagan Democrats") on April 17 (just after the war, when pro-Bush sentiment was highest) confirmed this. These voters said that they:

1. Were saddened that we fought the war virtually alone.
2. Want the United Nations to replace the U.S. in rebuilding Iraq and oversee the process of democratization.
3. Want most of the American troops to return to the U.S. as quickly as possible.
4. Hope that President Bush will soon turn his attention to the U.S. economy, which they perceive as worsening.

A cynic would say it's logical that voters want the U.N. to come in and clean up the mess we've left in Iraq. But the concern of these macho, Reagan Democrats transcended their concerns about any messiness in Iraq.

What surprised me was their real disappointment in Bush's failure to get any of our "friends" in Europe and elsewhere to help us. With so many enemies, they reasoned, America needs allies. And rather than talking of "black helicopters" and "world government," these pro-war voters -- surprise, surprise -- support the United Nations.

This quiet, populist multilateralism is powerful and positive. Unfortunately, it is meaningless without a political voice.

Some Democrats believe that it's time for multilateralists to move on to supposedly more populist issues like the economy and Bush's terrible budget. But calling on Bush to bring the troops home and allow the United Nations to oversee nation building is not just the right thing to do, it's also extremely popular with voters. And most voters don't separate their concerns about our role in Iraq and the distress over the state of the economy. In one sentence they will tell you that the President should bring the troops home so that he can focus on the economy.