Over at Welch’s site, an email buddy of his asks:

The entire pundacracy [sic], including in the blogisphere [sic], is seriously out of touch with mainstream opinion. Every pundit I have read so far is either for an attack on Iraq regardless of the U.N., or against an attack on Iraq, regardless of the U.N. Has any opinion-giver out there come out in favor of an attack only if the U.N. approves? Like, apparently, half the American population?

Well, half the US population is unacquainted with the fact that the earth orbits the sun, and would be unlikely to be able to point out the location of the UN headquarters on a map of Manhattan, let alone a globe (or at least that’s my recollection of the rough number the last time I saw a poll on the subject), so I’m not sure that’s a very good criterion to use to determine whether or not bloggers and pundits should agree with a position.

I think that most realistic and thoughtful people, along the political spectrum, have come to realize that the UN in its present form is an anachronism–a relic of the post war and the Cold War, now over for more than a decade. Further, to the degree that it is relevant at all, the UN at this point is primarily useful as a tool for other policy ends, and given the stakes of taking out Saddam by force, or not, whether or not the UN approves is indeed a marginal issue.

Last fall’s activities by Powell and Bush, forcing the UN to finally become serious about its own resolutions with respect to Iraq, were not just a last chance for Saddam, but a last chance for the UN as well. If we end up having to go into Iraq without the UN’s approval (though by the plain text of SCR 1141 we truly already have it), or are perceived to have done so, and are successful, it will probably be the end of that institution.