Stardate 20020923.1543

(On Screen): Congress is considering a draft resolution provided by the White House which will authorize hostilities against Iraq. In the Senate, Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (a Democrat) is trying to push the idea of requiring UN approval as part of the resolution.

Levin said that the backing of the United Nations would be essential to any operation to oust Saddam.

"I want him to look down the barrel of a gun with the world behind it, so that it's not just the United States versus Saddam, it's the world versus Saddam," he said.

I wouldn't mind that myself, actually. But Levin isn't being realistic, and I'm not sure I believe he's even trying to be. There are three choices: 1/do nothing, 2/act with UN approval, 3/act alone. He's saying (or trying to imply) he prefers #2 to #3, but that's not what would happen. #2 can't happen, and if the resolution they pass forbids #3, then it means we devolve to #1.

What he's dodging is the question of whether, once the UN refuses to authorize action against Iraq, he would favor inaction or us acting alone.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he thinks that the President isn't working as hard for UN support as it could be, and that making UN support a requirement would light a fire under the President and lead to it doing what would actually be necessary to make such a resolution happen.

No, I won't give him the benefit of that doubt, because he can't possibly be so naive. There isn't anything the US can reasonably do which will make passage of a UNSC certain except massive horse trading which would seriously damage our interests. It may well be true that the President isn't trying as hard as absolutely possible to get a UNSC resolution, but even if he were the chances of such a resolution passing are and always really have been pretty remote. (France, China and Russia have to consent. Yeah, right.)

OK, my fellow Americans, it's time for participatory democracy. If you are as skeptical about the UN as I am, then it's time to use your electronic voice to tell your Senator how you feel. (Or even if you disagree with me and support Senator Levin's position.)

Go to this page and find the entry for the senators from your state, and send them a short (no more than three line) and polite letter clearly stating your point of view.

Let's make sure you know what happens to your mail. The senator won't see it. Some clerk or secretary or aide is responsible for reading through the mail stream, and what they do is to pick out key phrases from the hundreds or thousands of email messages received each day and make a tally of how they land, e.g. umpteen for, umpteen against. So there is no point in writing at length, or in trying to explain why you feel what you do, or sending URLs to supporting evidence. Your message will only be processed into about four bits worth of information and the rest will be discarded.

But if you're abusive, the clerk will discard your message and not include you in the tally, and it will also be discarded if it takes more than ten seconds for the clerk to figure out where you stand. Be brief, be polite, be clear. A single sentence is best. Here's what I'm going to be sending to my senators:

I favor passage of authorization of military operations against Iraq, but I oppose any requirement for UN approval.
Steven Den Beste, San Diego

Since my senators are Boxer and Feinstein, I don't expect my own mail to do very much good. But I suspect there are Democratic senators out there who aren't deluded, and I'm sure that the Republicans would be glad to get the support. (Something like this shouldn't be party-line, but it will be.)