But most leaders in the White House soon have come to realize that the UN helps advance, not diminish, US national security interests -- even, as noted earlier, a unilateralist like George W. Bush.
But working with the UN in secrecy and displaying irregular commitment to the body, as the Bushites have done, represent the real problems. Both approaches feed the suspicions of UN-haters -- especially those in Congress -- who believe that the organization is a useless, corrupt, bloated organ that fundamentally weakens America. Mark Malloch Brown [United Nation's Deputy Secretary-General] is rightly pleading with the US to return to its first ideals as a nation -- those very values that impelled the nation to propose a UN in the first place and which convinced the American Senate to ratify the treaty 89-2 in July 1945.
-- Stephen Schlesinger, responding in part to John Bolton's negative remarks
Schlesinger, who wrote a book on the U.N., also quoted President Truman respecting the fact that just because we have the power to do something does not mean we should do it. The U.N. was created under his watch, and its creators knew it was an imperfect institution. But, it will be even more so, if we -- like in the days of the League of Nations -- do not work with it. Even, if some do not want to admit to the idea.
Talking about WWII, in response to a post on the abuses carried forth during this current conflict, it was noted that a few might question the military overall. A reply warned that this would serve as a means to attack the left, who apparently hate the military. This led me to comment:
The need for care in the use of military force was underlined by Justice Jackson during WWII:
Of course, the existence of a military power resting on force, so vagrant, so centralized, so necessarily heedless of the individual, is an inherent threat to liberty. ... If the people ever let command of the war power fall into irresponsible and unscrupulous hands, the courts wield no power equal to its restraint. The chief restraint upon those who command the physical forces of the country, in the future as in the past, must be their responsibility to the political judgments of their contemporaries and to the moral judgments of history.
Liberals honor the military, but our system rightfully is suspicious of its power. Consider the Third Amendment, promotion of the militia, and the overall fear of standing armies. The "prince of peace" in many people's minds suggests the honorable path of pacifism, but put that totally aside. The military is by design bloody, no matter how honorable we make it. "War it is hell."
As Jackson said as well:
The very essence of the military job is to marshal physical force, to remove every obstacle to its effectiveness, to give it every strategic advantage. Defense measures will not, and often should not, be held within the limits that bind civil authority in peace.
Men are not angels, so we need some devilish action, including use of force. But, demanding care before it is used is fully appropriate. Conservatives thought so in Bosnia in the 1990s, didn't they? If the bloodthirsty ("at least we aren't dying ... oh ... not as much as them") among us fail to understand this or consistently apply the doctrine, well what else is new?
And, surely we need internal safeguards, including freedom of discussion. A whistleblower who was punished for speaking freely while doing her job but failed to obtain protection from laws in place allegedly for people like herself wrote a powerful piece against the recent Supreme Court opinion on public employee speech. Of course, and the dissenting views on the estate tax underlines this is done even today, safeguards can also come from Congress -- Sen. Truman set up a military oversight committee after all.
An interesting footnote -- her note that information received might only be allowed for national security/intelligence purposes, not criminal prosecutions. This is sometimes the rule, though it can be abused -- safeguarding the criminal process is not the only reason certain securities are in place.