"The members of the Security Council are now faced with a grave choice. If they fail to agree on a common position and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action would be seriously impaired."

"If, on the other hand, they can come together, even at this late hour, to address this threat in a united manner and ensure compliance with the previous resolutions, then the Council's authority will be enhanced and the world will be a safer place."

The problem, as I see it anyway, is that some members of the Council appear to have no interest whatsoever in "addressing this threat," in a unified or any other manner. Nor do they seem overly concerned with making the world "a safer place." Their sole purpose now is apparently to force the United States into a position where it must either sacrifice national security (not to mention the security and safety of hundreds of thousands or Iraqi citizens), or risk international resentment for an action that will be called "illegitimate," "imperialist," and "unsupported."

Wah.

It's hard to avoid or delay action, solely out of fear of something that's going to happen regardless of our actions, and this certainly wouldn't be the first time we've faced such criticism. I'm sure it won't end up being the last, either.

The United States will no doubt face this dilemma head-on and with confidence, as it has other such situations in the past. The real decision is before the members of the "Security" Coucil: whether to make the very body to which they belong obsolete by once more resigning themselves to empty threats, or to truly enhance their authority by proving once and for all that they are able to keep their word and do what is necessary to make the world a safer place.