I am probably the last to figure out that the lack of UN support for this war is a curse and a blessing. It’s bad, of course, for all the obvious international-comity reasons, and probably a bad precedent for the future. But how about for the conduct of the war? When it looked like we were just rolling over the Iraqis, Saudi Arabia called for a “breather” to work the diplomatic front. And Bush Senior halted our first advance on Baghdad because he knew we’d lose support of our allies. If we were in this with the UN they would be calling for a cease-fire at the first heavy resistance, the first bad case of civilian casualties, each time it looked like the war was not going to be bloodless and short.

I am sorry to conclude that if we are to fight a war that does not stop short of the objectives of regime change and disarmament, it has to be waged by a determined American commander in chief. We could never have obtained UN support for such a war.

There is an echo here of the American requirement of unconditional surrender to end WWII. It has been criticized, particularly with Japan. It took nuclear bombs to effect it - and even then, we let them keep the Emperor. Chilling.