Wow, one could take an hour just to try to answer that question. It's a good question.
To begin with, I would urge the view that the long list that you enumerated would have to be divided between some that are legitimately peacekeeping and a couple that are really peacemaking, and I think they have to be treated somewhat differently. Also, it depends on the level of development of the particular countries at issue.
If we take the Congo for example, that's a peacemaking undertaking. The country is almost a failed state. I don't think the UN has been given enough resources overall—ODA, diplomatic or military—in order to deal with the issue. I think that over the years, just to take an example, we've talked seriously about involving ourselves more in the Congo, and a lot of people have sort of said that it's just not worthwhile, that we just can't make enough of a difference because we don't bring enough oomph to the battle.
I think we have to be very selective when we decide which peacekeeping or peacemaking activities we're going to be involved in and pick those where we can make a contribution or where the UN specifically asks us for help.
I would make the point, if I may, that help on the military side does not necessarily need to have privates and corporals carrying rifles. I was told once by a very senior UN peacekeeping officer that what they need more often than not are staff officers who can organize things. We have very good staff functions in this country, and we have good logistical support, but small-p politically, people want to see soldiers with guns. I think we need to work our way through all of this and be selective.