Occasionally the UN does get something right in spite of itself but that doesn’t mean that these successes could not be achieved via other means. And what they get wrong is far from accidental but a result of the institution pursuing the most vile of motivations.

Which is why even under the auspices of the UN, it was NATO-an alliance democracies- that managed the stuff in the former Yugoslavia, and even though it operated under the auspices of the UN the Coalition- a grab bag assortment of tyrannies and republics- could not muster the moral fortitude to take out Saddam completely, despite the crimes committed not only in Iraq but in Kuwait and against Iran and it was the US acting unilaterally with the Coalition of the Willing- all democracies, many recently free of a similar oppression that the Iraqis exited under- that took Saddam version of Stalin out, and assisted the Iraqi’s in replacing it with a republic.

No doubt about it, all three examples have hallmarks of corruption and waste, but only one can be considered even close to being successful at the present time, with an end game in sight.

I think realistically we expect too much from the UN, and expect too little of individual members.

Boy howdy! As if nobody saw that one coming.

Thirdly, America taints the UN with its money; some of which Mr. Brahimi regrettably receives and would doubtless return, were he only given an opportunity to do so.

Masterful, Wretchard, absolutely masterful. Worth the price of admission alone.

The bombing of the UN offices is driven more by the trends which produced Robert Mugabe than those which elected George W. Bush.

If only irony could kill instead of just tweak.

For example, every government official above the rank of bureau director or colonel should execute a waiver giving up the prospect of residence, citizenship or bank accounts in developed countries. In that way, any aspirant to the post of El Presidente will be forced into a make or break commitment to his country.

For that I would even hold my breath.

Just kidding!!!

Seriously, let’s have half a century of dealing with long- and medium-term problems via ad hoc coalitions of the willing, and see how the results compare. As for emergencies, why not just let the US Navy and Marines deal with them? That’s what ends up happening anyway, to a large extent, so we might as well be honest about it. Sure, it’s not really fair that the US fronts the cost for all this, but (a) emergency deployments can be useful training/preparedness exercises, and (b) the cost would hurt a lot less if we were no longer paying for the Useless Debating Society, too.

I also disagree with the commenter above who said that we cannot pull out of the UN. We’ve already pulled out of their upcoming conference on racism. I predict that in the future, we’ll be pulling out of more and more UN-funded confernences and projects until all that’s left is a final tug on the plug. But by that time, they’ll be based in Algeria, will have lots of other things to worry about, and probably won’t even notice.