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.
-
-
Most Read on Power Line
Donate to PL
-
Our Favorites
- American Greatness
- American Mind
- American Story
- American Thinker
- Aspen beat
- Babylon Bee
- Belmont Club
- Churchill Project
- Claremont Institute
- Daily Torch
- Federalist
- Gatestone Institute
- Hollywood in Toto
- Hoover Institution
- Hot Air
- Hugh Hewitt
- InstaPundit
- Jewish World Review
- Law & Liberty
- Legal Insurrection
- Liberty Daily
- Lileks
- Lucianne
- Michael Ramirez Cartoons
- Michelle Malkin
- Pipeline
- RealClearPolitics
- Ricochet
- Steyn Online
- Tim Blair
Media
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Temporarily disabled
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.