post">Posted by: crid at November 2, 2003 06:58 PM

The UN did bupkes during the Cold War except that thingie in Korea, and that was only because the Russians got drunk the night before and missed the meeting. Or something like that. Whereas in the last 12 years, despite some horrendous instances of inaction (cf. Rwandan genocide), they've been more active than ever in the peacekeeping realm. So it's more relevant in keeping the peace in little hot spots like the Balkans, places that previously were in a chilly Cold War stasis.

(Funny how the anti-UN crowd rarely mentions Bosnia and Kosovo except to kvetch about the fact the U.S. still have troops there.)

Anyway, Matt, when you say the article is "interesting," is that another way of saying "articulate and yet so totally obvious it's strange nobody of that stature has said anything like it before"?

She's also, um, still incredibly frank.

Posted by: Scott MacMillan at November 3, 2003 04:18 AM

For Madeline, not bad. I do find "interesting" the use of the word "ally" though when referring to you know who.

Posted by: Lloyd at November 3, 2003 10:42 AM

Scott, our initial intervention into Kosovo lacked UN approval. Its one of the reasons Albright sounds so silly.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at November 3, 2003 01:30 PM

Good point, but I was referring to KFOR and the UN post-conflict role, which has been a relative success.

Posted by: Scott MacMillan at November 4, 2003 03:43 PM

Relative to what? Fear and distrust between groups is not subsiding. As for attitudes and infrastucture, try here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/check.asp?idArticle=2501&r=nlmdb

Posted by: Alene Berk at November 6, 2003 12:17 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






= true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> = true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //-->