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.

Rand -
I agree that the mere number of people who believe something does not make it right. But it does make it a position that should be taken seriously, and I did not see anyone doing so.
Also I agree that the U.N. is somewhat anachronistic, although probably not as much as you. What should change about the U.N. however, depends on what direction you believe globalization should take. It seems to me that there are three possible options:
1. Stop it. That is what the anti-globalization folks want.
2. Subject all international organizations to the beneficial guidance of the U.S. The "American Empire" option.
3. Work toward the eventual creation of a democratic world government. Americanize planet Earth.
I am guessing you prefer option 2. Options 1 & 2 both tend to see the U.N. as meaningless.
I support option 3. Obviously strong steps can not be taken toward this goal until China falls to democracy on its own. In the meantime we have to put up with the U.N. as the voice of international law just because it is what is there, just as the world currently has to put up with America as world cop because were are the only ones who can be.
A lot of thoughtful people support eventual world democracy, but to not speak up too loudly because the other voices are so loud, and frankly, it is not currently a viable option. What the poll I cited shows is that many more American support international law than most people might suspect, and when the time comes for us to make our case (ie. China becomes democratic), we might have more support than those of you on either extreme expect.
-Decnavda

Well, actually it doesn't. I refuse to take seriously the notion that Heaven and Hell are real, even though a large majority of Americans believe in them, just as I refuse to take seriously the notion that the sun revolves around the earth.

I take things seriously for which there's a good case to be made--I don't believe that I should take something seriously simply because large numbers of other people do.

There may be a time, sometime in the future, that a world government will work, but I hope that by then I'll be living off planet. We're certainly a long way from it now, though democratizing the Middle East would be a vital step toward such a goal.

The UN is utterly useless -- a high school student council on a global scale -- and the EU is already showing fracture lines. NATO? A great way ton keep the Soviet Union from invading western Europe, but now...?

It's obvious the world needs a policeman. It's equally obvious that we can't (or shouldn't, anyway) shoulder the Developed Man's Burden alone. So how to keep the Jongs and their Dongs at bay without putting Kofi Annan in charge of the works? My suggestion: admit the UK into NAFTA to cement the "special relationship" with the U.S. and end the debate over EU integration -- and then withdraw from NATO. Led by the U.S., a new mutual defense organization could then be formed. Call it the Northern Community of Nations (NORTHCOM for short) -- a treaty organization similar to NATO in structure and purpose but global in scope and free of Franco-German politics. I suggest the US, Canada, Mexico, the UK, Poland, Japan and maybe Russia as the charter members. Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, the Philippine Republic, and Taiwan/ROC could form the Southern Community of Nations (SOUTHCOM) to keep tabs on the bottom half, and the two treaty organizations could set up a framework for mutual support. Each community would contribute to a common standing military force that would enforce a de facto Pax Occidens on the rest of the planet. All this done well and voila -- a global "peace force", independent of UN meddling, respectful of national sovreignity, and able to keep the peace and preserve the interests of member nations without having to resort to "coalition-building" or subservience to globalist bureaucrats on either side of the East River.

Uh, I kind of like number three, except I'd prefer that there was an "s" at the end of government. It'd be great if we could get all of the world under some kind of of democratic government, but past that I say let a thousand flowers bloom. There is no need for all of them to be the same, in fact choice would be prefered. One world government would not only probably be logistically and politically impossible, but would make the instalation of totalitarian policies easier.

We should (1) pull out of the UN and (2) kick the UN out of the US - let them go meet in Geneva among the more "cultured" Europeans. And pull our money out, too. Whatever the original intent of the UN was, it's now become overrun with professional thieves and tyrants intent on stealing not only our money, but our freedom.

I disagree that the polls actually show half of the US population demanding UN approval before we move. Every such alleged poll I've seen has managed to bias the questions to get that result.

If you simply ask "should we go over there and kick Iraq's butt?", you'll probably get 60 or 70% saying "yes". Note that there's no mention of the UN there...

Remember, back before Congress gave its approval, all the polls were busy saying the American public demanded Congressional approval; now that we've got it, the media has to find another excuse.

The "out of touch" accusation has some value in election campaigns, but in between elections our leaders need to focus on things other than the shifting winds of public opinion.

We recently had a president who was deathly afraid of being "out of touch" even if the next election was two years away. Constant focus groups and polling. Where did that get us, especially in matters of foreign policy?

Withdraw from the UN and kick them out. Everyone will scream for a while, but in 3 years only the leftwing punditocracy will still be complaining. Everyone else will realize that it didn't make 1 bit of difference in their daily lives.

If the US withdraws and kicks the UN out of NY, that will effectively turn the UN into a vehicle for organizing anti-American sentiment. Why would you want to hand over a ready-made institution -- one that still enjoys some reputation for legitimacy in large parts of the world -- to your (future) enemies to use against you? Much better to stay in and use the Security Council seat to prevent it being used as a vehicle contrary to US interests.

> If the US withdraws and kicks the UN out of NY, that will effectively turn the UN into a vehicle for organizing anti-American sentiment. Why would you want to hand over a ready-made institution -- one that still enjoys some reputation for legitimacy in large parts of the world -- to your (future) enemies to use against you?

The UN already is a vehicle for organizing anti-American sentiment.

Quitting the UN would let other countries pay for said vehicle and help delegitimize it in the eyes of Americans.

Actually, my belief is that if you withdraw from the UN and kick it out of NY, it will be a shadow of its former self very quickly.

First, the US provides 25% of the budget of the UN, and that's official gov't support, not Ted Turner. :) It's often in dire financial straits even with our funding, cut it back that much and it's going to be really hurting.

The UN get's the status and recognition it receives now simply because it is in the United States. It's a cushy job by a diplomat's standards because he gets to live in NY, have a driver, enjoy the benefits of living in the US, while simultaneously sounding off against it. Take that away, and it loses coverage on the evening news (how high a billing to EU meetings get on World News Tonight?) and it's not such a great post for diplomats anymore.

The UN has no enforcement power. Name me one UN led action that did not have the US running most of it, or being primarily involved that was successful? Without US military might, (and the UK would bail too) how far do you think the French Air Force would get in doing anything significant? Or maybe the Zimbabwean National Guard?

I see you suggest that if we kick it out, it will just become the base of operations for anti-Americanism. How exactly would that be different than now?

Within 5 years of a US pullout of the UN, the organization would cease to exist. It's an anachronism and has just become a tool for the promotion of the redistribution of world wealth and power. It's time to give it the heave-ho.

Bob