David Frum says that the next target in the War on Terror should be the UN itself.

Read the whole thing, but here's one part that I'd never previously considered:

Behind all of these problems is a larger one: The UN is inherently incompetent to deal with the problem of terrorism. The UN Charter forbids states to use force against other states -- which was the UN's excuse for condemning Israel for bombing Iraq's French-built nuclear reactor in 1981. But the Charter has nothing to say about the use of force by non-states or quasi-states -- which is why the UN kept silent when Hezbollah, with Iranian help, bombed the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994, killing more than 100 people.

Yes, I'd say that at least in terms of global security, the organization has long outlived any usefulness it may have once had.

And I found this little bit here thought provoking:

Some of the oil contracts between Iraq and France are hugely disfavorable to Iraq. Saddam seems to have believed that these special deals would win him France's political support. A new Iraqi government might want to renegotiate or even cancel these contracts -- how would it benefit the Iraqi people for that to be prevented?

If that's the case, then why shouldn't these contracts simply be considered odious debt that should be forgiven?