What here seems irrational to you?

That Bush might turn anything over to the UN? The White House has said in the past that it plans to turn much, if not all, of the grunt work of rebuilding Iraq off to the UN. Some of the recent leaks that suggest that the US might rule Iraq for many years may or may not be true. As long as the US can keep enough leverage over any UN group to control what it wants to, why not turn the expensive and unprofitable jobs of humanitarian support and medical aid off to other countries?

That the UN might not be ready to take over Iraq? Seems like an honest assement to me. The UN has neither the power nor organization to run a large and unstable country. They have overseen small statelets in the past, but didn't do a good job and Iraq is sure to be a much harder problem.

The UN is also limited in what they can justify doing if they don't approve the US war. Setting up a government would be a defacto approval of the US war.

Keep in mind also, Bush in not the absolute dictator of events that he wants to be. It may be that some countries have tied their security council vote to US support for UN control after the war. The US would much rather have UN support then go without it, even if that means giving up some power in Iraq down the road.

Jay