Would the UN do better?

There has been so much talk about internationalizing the effort in Iraq by letting the UN take over. But is that really going to make much difference?

First of all, there is the huge UN-Iraq Oil-for-Food scandal that is still unfolding where UN corruption is being investigated. I don't doubt that the US led efforts have some deficiencies but to my knowledge there haven't been reports of outright corruption.

And now there is this item that says UBL will give gold as reward for killing US and UN officials. Excerpt:

CAIRO, Egypt - A statement attributed to Osama bin Laden offered rewards in gold valued at nearly $136,000 Thursday for the killing of top U.S. and U.N. officials in Iraq.
............
"The United Nations is nothing but a Zionists' tool, even if it worked under the cover of providing humanitarian aid," the statement said. "... Whoever kills Kofi Annan or the head of his commission in Iraq or a representative like Lakhdar Brahimi, he will be awarded the same prize of 10,000 grams of gold."

Even if it were logistically possible to substitute the UN for US forces in Iraq, they would come under attack just like US military units.

I certainly hope we can get more international support for our effort but in my mind those who call for a UN take over of the situation are being simplistic about it being a cure-all of what ails Iraq.