King, I try to be a student of history. And in one fashion or another, I was a "cold warrior" for about 30 years, and a post-cold warrior for a few after that. The UN, as far as I can recall--maybe you can correct me--hasn't engaged in a single significant military action since Korea. That's better than half a century, King. And the only reason they engaged there was because the Soviet Union walked out of the Security Council and was thus unable to exercise its veto. Too many competing interests in the UN for it ever to be effective in intervention.

NATO, on the other hand, can be and has been--although it continues to rely far too much on US leadership. (See my earlier Balkans example. Why did the Europeans have to wait for us to go to work solving a problem in their own backyard?)

As for preemptive war, the only one I'm aware of we've engaged in recently is Iraq. Afghanistan was obviously reactive, and I certainly hope you're not arguing the Americans--and the Canadians--should not be there. NATO is well represented, although there are plenty of members that could certainly do more--and should. Afghanistan, if one knows anything of its history, presents some particular difficulties. But as long as we don't throw up our collective hands, that's not one we're going to lose. No one is being bled badly there, that's for sure. And considering what happened the last time we declared victory and left Afghanistan--when the mujaheddin defeated the Russians--the United States certainly isn't about to pull up stakes. I don't think that would happen, even should the Democrats control both the White House and Congress as a result of next year's elections.