Kevin Drum says the Hans Blix report suggests Hussein has no intention of disarming. OK. If that constitutes a sufficient threat to the security of world peace to justify war, then I still think we should play by the rules we helped set up for this kind of stuff after World War II. These rules may not yet be completely obsolete and unworkable.

If the U.S. can and should convince the U.N. Security Council that Iraq needs invading, then a U.N. Security Force can do it.

If (as I don't believe), the U.N. is useless as an organization to protect world peace, then the U.S. should attempt to build a consensus and coalition of its allies, as it has done in the past and let the coalition launch an invasion *if this is really the least evil way to avert a real threat.*

Should the U.S. *start* a war, unilaterally, in response to a pessimistic U.N. report? Are we that sure about our Superior Perceptions of Reality? Now? Under Bush and Cheney? Without the approval of any other world powers (except possibly for the U.K.)?

I'm not convinced that this is a good idea. If we had photos of rocket launchers in Iraq armed with nuclear missiles *and* strong reason to believe these weapons might soon be sold to independent terrorist groups, *then* I would sympathize with the anxiety that drives an intent for unilateral invasion, right now.

Personally, I still wouldn't be in favor of it under the current de facto controllers of the United States military. I'd be more sympathetic, though, to the belief that we need a large strategic solution to the WMD problem instead of social/economic/political action complemented (if necessary) by tactical military actions.

And I'd also be more sympathetic to the idea that the post WWII paradigms we've developed for preserving international peace (NATO, the U.N., etc.) need rapid revision or replacement.

But I don't see those photos, yet, or the evidence that Iraq is about to supply Al Qaeda with those WMD.

The news yesterday that Kuwait's parliament is still adamantly refusing to grant women the vote doesn't fill me with exuberance over the prospects of peace and democratic reform in a post-war Iraq. Neither does the current state of affairs in Afghanistan. Absent compelling evidence of weapons of mass destruction and the intent to use them (weapons which we were apparently quite happy for Hussein to employ as long as it was against the speakers of Farsi, and in fact to supply him with more), what pressing need do we have to go about unilaterally declaring war on states we don't like? In the meantime, people seem to have forgotten the barracks-full of Marines taken out by a Scud that slipped through the Patriot's faulty software, the 300 Iraqi civilians cowering in a shelter that was obliterated by one of our smart bombs, our soldiers stepping on land mines, mechanical failures of our warplanes in the combat zone, and so on, ad infinitum. It's enough to make one long for fleeing to Canada, but I'd be afraid of being bombed by mistake. (And *there* is something to give our would-be allies pause.)

Well, at least we can continue our tradition of being the only nation to employ nuclear weapons in warfare, but how long could we really expect to hold on to the title?