Saul Singer of the Jerusalem Post makes a point in this National Review Online piece that I’ve been pushing off-and-on since I started writing for Power Line, but that I haven’t seen elsewhere — the fewer nations that support our military action against Iraq, the better. As Singer explains, “the war in Iraq is about smashing a particular gang, which will send a powerful message to the other gangs that the U.S. is no longer going to tolerate gang rule.” Proceeding only after securing a broad international consensus weakens the message because it suggests a reluctance to smash other gangs without international consent. Since the U.N. has long tolerated gang rule, a better approach would be to take actions that, in Singer’s words, “fly in the face of U.N. capituation to gang rule.” Instead, we will have wasted half a year cajoling the U.N. to agree to end its capitulation to the rule of only one gang.
- Subscribe now!... Get rid of ADs!Support Power Line...VIP MembershipPresentsPower Line
-
Most Read on Power Line
-
Our Favorites
- American Greatness
- American Thinker
- Ann Althouse
- Belmont Club
- Center of the American Experiment
- Claremont Institute
- Dartblog
- Hot Air
- Hugh Hewitt
- InstaPundit
- Jewish World Review
- Legal Insurrection
- Library of Law and Liberty
- Lileks
- Lucianne
- Michael Ramirez Cartoons
- Michelle Malkin
- Real Clear Politics
- Ricochet
- Roger L. Simon
- Steyn Online
- Tim Blair
- Urgent Agenda
Media
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Find us on Facebook
-
“Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” Winston Churchill
“Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof.” Inscription on the Liberty Bell
-
Archives
-