Okay, so now I'm probably going to be doing light blogging for the next four days or so.
But, meanwhile, David Frum and Richard Perle have given us a shorter version of their book An End to Evil in this article: U.N. Should Change - or U.S. Should Quit Los Angeles Times 01/23/04. This line pretty much sums up why Molly Ivins in right in suggesting that the title of the book should have been The Beginning of Evil [my emphasis]:
The U.N. has become an obstacle to our national security because it purports to set legal limits on the United States' ability to defend itself. If these limits ever made sense at all, they do not make sense now.
This is not just a call to "Get US out of the UN," as the old John Birch Society slogan put it. It's also a call for the United States to abandon international law, as well. The body of international law they want to abandon is something the the United States has had a very large role in creating and has served us well.
Does this guy Perle really belong on an official Pentagon advisory board?
Having people like this in charge of making foreign policy is a lot crazier than a Presidential candidate saying "Yee-haw" at a campaign rally.
3 comments:
This is just the type of incendiary doublespeak that the right engages in to rally their troops. The fact is, the United Nations Charter does allow for unilateral self defense IF there is evidence of imminent threat. Otherwise we would have the global version of the O.K. Corral.
I really enjoy your political commentary, keep up the good work!
I think this approach is incredibly self-destructive. The Iraq War is an excellent first example of what this kind of arrogant, unilateralist approach can lead to. This attitude toward international law by Frum and Perle is based on a grotesque overestimate of American power. We may be spending 1/2 the military budget of the world. But did that make Iraq a cakewalk? Hardly.
And thanks to dktex03 for stopping by. - Bruce
Post a Comment