Will you please explain this recurring fantasy that somehow the U.N. will "make it all better?"

Is there any evidence that the war would have worked out better if France, Germany, and Russia had stamped their approval on it? Is a war more or less moral if you have a gang than if you do it yourself? Would it have been shorter? Easier? Would fewer Iraqi civilians have died?

Is there any evidence that the Iraqis will suddenly stop blowing troops up in the future if they have blue helmets?

Is there any evidence that the U.N. can do anything even remotely more effective than coalition forces in combating armed terror groups?

The liberal seems to see the U.N. almost as a magic talisman. Kind of like bureaucrats feel about assigning "committees" to solve problems. I guess it makes them feel better, more "multinational," to have the U.N. involved, but in a practical military sense, there's not a lot of point to it.

The involvement of the U.N. can help in only two ways:

- Fewer Americans and more U.N. soldiers in Don's Daily Death Count. Is that really better? It doesn't count if they aren't Americans?

- Maybe some cash from other nations to help us out with rebuilding. No doubt this is what Bush really is hoping for. But don't hold your breath waiting for the checks to roll in.

In Afghanistan, the NGOs have been a standing joke, and no doubt the first thing the U.N. would do in Iraq is haul a bunch more of them in.