Security remains a serious problem in Iraq partly because, contrary to administration assurances, our military force levels are obviously inadequate.Inadequate for what purpose? Security? With all due respect to Senator McCain, he sounds like a dinosaur saying this. I've yet to hear someone make a convincing case that more troops will mean more security, rather than simply more targets for drive-by turkey shoots. (Israel, which is, for obvious reasons, quite keen on security, proves that there is no such thing as perfect security.) I'd like to hear a plan from the "more troops" folks before we commit to following their advice.
That said, we're surely in a pickle with the U.N. content to sit this out until we crawl back to kiss Kofi's Ring of Multilateralism (one ring to rule them all, eh?). That means ceding control of Iraq to those who were just fine with the policy of issuing empty resolution upon empty resolution, each time sure that Saddam repent of his crimes (of which the highest, to the U.N., was likely that he was inconsistent in the vigor his condemnation of Zionism). It's going to be a big job to rebuild only the Brits and a handful of NGOs (the limousine liberals of the third world) helping us out. But it's worth it to continue to stiff the U.N. on this. Bush was right when he said they risked irrelevance. And they rolled snake eyes on that risk, history will show.