There seems to
be a few folks who misunderstood (perhaps willfully?) my earlier post
about resolution 1441. I never said the US violated
resolution 1441 -- the one passed unanimously by the Security Council several months ago -- by going to war. What I said is that 1441 gives no sanction for the attack, since the countries then on the Security Council were quite clear that
1441 could only be enforced by another vote of the Security Council. The US made it very clear it reserved the right to opt out of the Security Council process altogether -- which it eventually did -- if the Security Council later acted in a way that the US administration did not deem serious. The US has that right. Some folks don't think we have that right. I think we do. I just don't think it was wise in this case.
In any case, declaring a contingent intention to opt out of the UN process is, by definition, not a part of the UN process. If there's anyone who doesn't grasp this, I've got some square pegs and round holes I'd like you to take a stab at.
Now James Taranto over at the Wall Street Journal says my "hair-splitting legal analysis completely ignores Resolution 678 of Nov. 29, 1990, which authorized U.N. member states 'to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.'"
Now, I'm all for fig leaves in their place. We used one in Kosovo, if I recall correctly. And I'm glad we did. But let's know a fig leaf when we see one. For conservatives to hang this on 678 in any serious sense is sad and unseemly. Better just to have the courage of your own unilateralism -- since unilateralism has its place -- rather than resort to this sort of feeble caviling.