First, the UN has unanimously approved the resolution calling for troops and money to aid reconstruction in Iraq: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031016/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq That being said, I'm very worried about what sort of concessions we had to make to get Syria to vote for this. But this will either lead for more assistance in rebuilding Iraq, or serve as more evidence that the UN is a meaningless debating society, either of which is a good thing. Second, Iraqi Governing Council President Ayad Allawi has said that elections will "definitely" be held in 2004: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...p/20031015/ap_on_re_mi_ea/islamic_summit_iraq In addition, the aforementioned UN resolution calls for a definitive timetable for elections to be set by December 15 of this year. Once a date for elections has been announced, the reality of Allied forces as liberators rather than occupiers will become clear for those Iraqis who do not already view things this way (except for the Ba'athist loyalists and al Qaeda insurgents, but we're not going to get them on our side anyway).
RE: the UN Resolution... Does this bind anyone who voted for it to pony up troops and/or money? If it does not - what the hell was the point of the US pushing the resolution and spending so much time on it?
No it doesn't, the Frechies, Germans and Russians have already said they won't give any troops or money. This will take some of the burden off of the US and place it on the UN.