If the principle of going to war doesn't really matter, that is, the only legitimate reasons for prosecuting war on another country are either 1) If you are directly attacked, or 2) If the U.N. approves of the action, then both Bosnia and Afghanistan were illegitimate wars.

Everyone agree on that?

Let's talk in particular about Afghanistan, a war in which most liberals say they supported, while pretending as if there wasn't much opposition to it (though I remember very well all sorts of comments about Afghan pipelines being the real reason for invasion, and comments like, "Why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia instead, since most of the hijackers came from there?")

But let's take for granted that most liberals actually did support the war wholeheartedly, as they're now saying.

There was no U.N. resolution explicitly authorizing us to use force against the Taliban, so it was an illegal war, right? The government of Afghanistan had not explicitly either declared war on the U.S. or attacked us, right? Bush basically laid down an ultimatum, under threat of military force: Surrender bin Laden and close the terrorist training camps, or your country will be invaded and your government will be toppled.

Pretty unilateral, huh? Bush went about the business of talking to other leaders and keeping them up-to-date on our intentions and actions, but it was an overwhelmingly U.S. military force in October 2001. It was as much or less of a "coalition" than the forces that invaded Iraq.

So I ask, for those who supported our actions in Afghanistan to please share your tortured logic of how that war was any more legitimate (in terms of U.N. approval) and any less unilateral (in terms of the composition of the forces) than the invasion of Iraq.