The New York Times and Sudan

The Beltway Blitz blog is calling attention to an editorial in today's New York Times about the inability of the UN to deal with the problems in Sudan. According to the Blitz:

The Times editors' don't spell it out completely but the logical end of their argument for Sudan has a distinctly neo-conservative flavor. When it comes to the most important issues, the United States must sometimes go it alone. It's certainly not anyone's preferred route - not even for neo-cons. Large alliances are definitely better. But our interests and the interests of the world's most desperate and persecuted peoples are not their interests.

If one thing comes from the Sudan debacle, it might be this. It has shown the Times' editors and others of their ilk that it might be more than merely morally permissible to ignore the moral vacuum that is the United Nations. In some cases, it is a moral imperative.

Amen.