The "peace-keepers" are a UN idea. The European Union will push it and it will be adopted. We're going to see peace-keepers in Afghanistan, and they will do their usual estimable job. It was US Marines who were in Lebanon as peace-keepers in the early 80s. They actually had a few tense confrontations with the Israelis in defense of the Lebanese, before the Lebanese blew 240 of them to pieces while they slept in barracks. UN peace-keepers in the Balkans declared safe areas where Muslims could gather to be butchered by Serbs. Sarajevo was an open city under UN protection while it was being blown to pieces. This very night, Macedonians will slumber peacefully in their beds, their security guaranteed by peace-keepers. US forces were in Somalia first to deliver groceries to the starving, then as peace-keepers; just look at how fondly all sides recall the experience. And peace-keepers did a fine job in places like Liberia and Sierra Leone.

Now the question becometh: who will be the peace-keepers? Pakistan, having created the Taliban and having watched a few thousand of its nationals rushing across the border waving swords and guns and screaming "jihad!" has volunteered for the job. And Saudi Arabia, whose charity has produced the system of madrassahs in Pakistan from whence appeared the Taliban, has offered to send financial aid. That should certainly calm things down and induce trust among all the Afghan parties. This is what might be termed the Worst Case Scenario.

If we lived in a logical world, American, British, Russian and perhaps Turkish forces would do the job. If the EU is determined to be involved, add the French as well. This would only work if the peace-keepers were authorized to use force as necessary to pacify the parties -- acting, in fact, as a national army for Afghanistan until all the factions had been disarmed. These would have to be not run-of-the-mill troops, but rather on the order of a Marine Expeditionary Force, the Gurkhas, the Legion, and a division of Russian airborne. But this scenario would never play in "the Arab street." Nor would it play in the American or European press. It would imply that someone actually wanted to accomplish something, to whit, the establishment of a secure, modern state somewhere between Iran and Pakistan.

What we'll likely see is something entirely different, which is a force cleverly designed to maintain as much of the status quo as possible and offend no one outside Afghanistan. Pakistan and, to a slightly lesser extent, Iran both regard Afghanistan as being within their spheres of influence. Both resent meddling by outside parties, regardless of any benefit that would actually accrue to the Afghans, or even to themselves. Neither will tolerate a program that has a chance of being effective. Hence the call for "neutral Muslim" forces. Non-Muslim forces would, of course, "pollute" the Afghan holy places, drink beer, and flirt with the local women. So expect to see Moroccans and Jordanians driving around in blue armored personnel carriers. Expect them to leave quickly if the ISI can figure a way to put another proxy force into the country; we haven't heard anything from the Baluchis, have we? They seem to have been quite left out of the recent festivities.

If the world is determined to be ineffectual, at least use neutral non-Muslim forces for the futile UN "presence." Brazilians and Argentines, for instance, might at least introduce the lambada and the tango so the Afghans would have a little something to amuse themselves after the next government collapses.