International Law, International Schlaaw

So we all agree that deceiving the public is a bad thing. ok...now i'm over it. The larger point of the Phillipe Sands book is that the Iraq War undermined the post-WWII international order - an accomplishment which, to be honest, doesn't bother me that much.

The reason is that the post-WWII international order was designed to deal with what was seen as the biggest international issue follow WWII - war. I just disagree that interstate war is the greatest evil in our world.

Now about this international law thing that progressives and Europeans hold in such high esteem. Problem is, most don't know exactly what it is. One does not break international law by "faking evidence, by painting "UN" on a spy plane or by "betraying the world's trust in the UN." One does, however, break international law by intervening in a country without Security Council mandate to end human rights abuses, as NATO did in Kosovo, or by liberating a people from an oppressive dictator and allowing them to exercise their natural democratic rights, as the United States and others are trying (granted through much Administration incompetence) to do in Iraq.

As I posted before, while international law is increasingly focused on human security, the bulk of I-law and the ultimate focus of the post-WWII international system is the security of the state, not of the individual.

So before you go doggin' on the President for undermining international law or the international order, make sure we you shouldn't be patting him on the back instead.