Blair has been getting bloodied for supporting us. It's sound policy to give him what cover we can at the UN. And from what I hear, the UK/US may pull another rabbit out of a hat and get majority support for their resolution.
Nice piece of revisionism. We did'nt even try to get a stronger resolution out of the Security Council, because any suggestion of regime change would have cost us the use of Saudi bases, and UAE, Omani, Saudi, Egyptian, and Syrian troops. Bush I did a remarkable job putting that coalition together and keeping Israel on the sidelines when the Scuds started flying. Getting rid of Saddam in 1991 was not on the table. It could'nt be.
Having said that, we did really screw up by allowing the Iraqi Military to fly their helos and operate heavy weapons in the Shi'a South and Kurdish North. We could have ordered their military to their pre-war barracks, and grounded EVERYTHING that flew. Have a covert operation to arm the rebels in the north and south, and voila, c' ya Saddam.
Can't blame this one on the UN; Bush I knew he would have never got the rest of the Gulf and the SC to go along with a total war, and that was'nt what he asked Congress, the UN, or our staging points in the Gulf to go along with.
The UN is a relic of the Cold War, and it operates from a Cold War-era paradymn -- it exists to maintain the status quo, which means a stand-off between the free world and oppressive regimes around the world. President Bush has established a bold foreign policy for the 21st Century -- to squash international terrorism, and the states which support it, leaving liberty for oppressed peoples in our wake. The UN still operates in 20th Century "diplomacy," and stand in our way of liberating the world from terror. This is why the UN is irrelevant. It has failed to change with the changing nature of the world.