UNITED NATIONS - Faced with a no-win situation in an increasingly deadly Iraq, the United States is proposing the creation of a new U.N.-authorised peacekeeping force led by a U.S. military commander.

''But it just won't fly,'' predicts Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies.

The proposal is a non-starter because it is incompatible with the demand of countries such as France, Germany, Russia and India, which are insisting on ''power-sharing'' -- with or without the United Nations, she added.

All four countries have said they will provide troops only under U.N. authorization and only if U.S. military authority is diluted.

India, which is expected to provide about 18,000 troops, says it will have to see the content of the proposed U.S. resolution before making a final decision.

Richard Armitage, U.S. deputy secretary of state, told reporters Wednesday that Washington is willing, for the first time, to agree to a U.N. force in Iraq -- as long as it is commanded by an American.

U.S. President George W. Bush is expected to personally push for the proposal when he meets world political leaders during the U.N. General Assembly sessions in late September.

Bush, who is scheduled to address the assembly Sep. 23, is expected to focus heavily on Iraq and international terrorism.

According to diplomatic sources here, the lobbying will be confined mostly to the 14 other members of the Security Council -- including veto-wielding France, China and Russia -- who will have to give their blessings to a U.S.-sponsored resolution creating the new U.N. force.

Britain, which along with the United States also holds a veto in the Security Council, is expected to back the proposal.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told reporters Monday that he foresees the Security Council transforming the present military operation into a U.N.-mandated multinational force.

But, he warned, the exercise should not just imply burden sharing, but also the sharing of decisions and responsibilities.

''If that doesn't happen, I think it is going to be very difficult to get a resolution that will satisfy everybody,'' he added.

The proposed arrangement is similar to U.N.-mandated multinational missions in Bosnia and Somalia, and also the more recent French-led military intervention force in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

These missions, created by the Security Council, were not manned by ''blue-helmeted'' U.N. peacekeepers but by multinational forces.

The funding for the proposed Iraq force will not come from the United Nations but from individual countries, including the United States.

That is how it should be, says one observer.

''We cannot expect our allies or the United Nations to help pay the bills of a U.S.-run military operation,'' says Erik Gustafson, executive director of the Education for Peace in Iraq Center.

''Nor can we expect major powers like France and Germany to contribute forces to a U.S. military occupation,'' he told IPS.

Gustafson said the future body should have both an independent U.N. mandate and a supervisory role.

''The Bush administration should drop its demand that a U.N. force operate under the command of a U.S. occupation in Iraq. If not, continued U.S. unilateralism will cost America dear, both in lives and taxpayer dollars, and may ultimately lead to a failure reminiscent of Vietnam.''

The level of independence and authority granted to the force will largely determine its success, he argued.

''If a U.N. force is sent to Iraq, but placed under the auspices of a U.S. occupation (or viewed as aiding or abetting that occupation), then I fear it will be the target of additional attacks by anti-U.S. militants.''

This would not only put the U.N. force at risk, but also endanger U.N. aid workers as well as the millions of Iraqis who depend on humanitarian assistance, he added.

The United States has a force of about 140,000 troops in Iraq but is refusing to send in more soldiers despite pressure from both Democratic and Republican Congressmen.

The occupation is reportedly costing Washington one billion dollars a week, a price tag that has prompted some U.S. politicians to urge Bush to relent on U.S.-only leadership of the proposed force.

Calls for a larger force have also been prompted by the increasingly heavy death toll of U.S. servicemen. On Monday, the number of U.S. troops killed in post-war Iraq reached 139, surpassing the number killed during the military attack on Iraq in March and April.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters early this week that 30 nations have agreed to provide 22,000 troops for the proposed multinational force. Five other countries are in the process of participating, and Washington is expecting troops from 14 others, he added, without identifying the nations.

But even at full strength, the force would still fall short of the troops required to contain the attacks in Iraq, say many experts.

Senator Joe Biden, a ranking Democrat in the Senate foreign relations committee, brushed off administration claims that it had received strong assurances of military support from allies overseas.

Those countries, Biden said, were contributing an average of about 400 troops each. What the United States needs in Iraq, he said, is about 40,000 to 60,000 additional troops to contain the ongoing violence.

Copyright 2003 IPS - Inter Press Service

###