I think this demonstrates very clearly the fallacy of defining the proper action to take in terms of a world consensus.  By going to the UN for approval, Bush shifted the focus from anything Saddam has done to whether Saddam complies with whatever the UN decides.  So now cartoonists feel free to imply the US is just as culpable as Iraq.  Why?  Well, they're both equally disregarding the UN!  How shameful!

Bush originally talked as if he would act with or without any other country's approval ("You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror").  But then he compromised with those who said the US needs the world's approval before acting, and "presented his case" to the UN.  Since (of course) he didn't get their approval, he can no longer act "unilaterally" without making the US look hypocritical.

The conclusion that Bush should draw from this (but will fail to): Never ever think you can "compromise" on moral principles.  It's not possible--you just end up conceding entirely.

Doug

PS: A relevant excerpt from a letter by George Washington:

"I can most religiously aver that I have no wish that is
incompatible with the dignity, happiness, and true interest of the people of this country. My ardent desire is, and my aim has been (as far as depended upon the Executive Department) to comply strictly with all our engagements, foreign and domestic, but to keep the United States free from political connections with every other country, to see that they may be independent of all and under the influence of none. In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home, and not, by becoming the partisans of Great Britain or France, create dissensions, disturb the
public tranquillity, and destroy, perhaps forever, the cement which binds the Union." [Edmund S. Morgan, The Genius of George Washington (New York: W.W. Norton, 1980), p. 86.

I agree with Doug's point (you cannot compromise on moral principals) as well as his criticism of the cartoon and the way the Iraq issue is being handled (i.e. rather than presenting evidence to the world that Hussein is a dick and a threat and needs to be eliminated now, regardless of the costs that we incur in the broader war on terrorism, we make the wishy-washy argument that he violated a UN resolution).

However, I do not agree with Doug's overall tone of unilateralism in this case. There are indeed certain situations when a nation must stand its ground and stand alone, if need be. But I feel that in this issue we are greatly increasing the cost of our long-term war on terror by burning bridges so that we might take quick action against Iraq. I have, to date, not seen any evidence nor heard of any evidence being presented in confidentiality to other nations that indicates why Iraq is a greater threat than al-Qaeda.

As for Washington's statement: I believe his intent was to avoid enslaving our fledgling nation to the interests of larger powers at that time. However, we are not only the world's largest power at this point (and need allies to help establish our foreign policy around the world), but our very prosperity desperately depends on resources and manpower from every corner of the globe. No nation exists in a vaccuum, especially not the world's largest superpower, especially not in the interconnected commercial atmosphere of the post-industrial era.

-peter

Just as a note, Bush didn't want to go to the UN. It was Colin Powell who pushed for the UN involvement.

And I would seriously take issue with the theory/belief that this war is about moral principals. Please feel free to email me if you want to discuss that. I'm really interested in hearing that viewpoint since I can't find any way of rationalizing it myself.

Speaking of complicated foreign policy, thoughts on North Korea anyone?

Rob

Screwy. ; )