The day after criss-crossing the nation in a day of remembrance, President Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly calling for a new resolution and speedy action against Saddam Hussein’s flagrant disregard for weapons inspection. Insisting the threat the Iraqi leader poses cannot be ignored, Bush called for the United Nations to stick by its resolution. He also said that Saddam’s actions were so unacceptable that even without U.N. backing the United States would intervene.

Despite condemnation from the U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, Bush and his top security officials continue to make the case to U.N. members that their support in quashing Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities is important. While several members of the Security Council are hesitant to approve of military action in Iraq, most agree that he has been recalcitrant in cooperating with U.N. resolutions aimed at ridding Iraq of its biological, chemical or even nuclear weapons capabilities.

While many of our closest friends, including Germany, Japan and France, continue to press for exhaustive diplomatic attempts to reign in Saddam, President Bush has made clear that he will pursue Saddam regardless of international support. Moreover, considering the divide among permanent members of the Security Council, the unanimous vote necessary to sanction U.N. forces is most likely not forthcoming.

Is U.N. support necessary for the impending war in Iraq? No. The president has indicated that regardless of international backing, he will bring Saddam’s obstinacy to justice. Is U.N. support important for accomplishing President Bush’s stated objectives? Absolutely.

First, U.N. action carries the legitimacy of a collective global body. This prevents the world from acquiescing to a precedent of one sovereign nation invading another, a prudent point to make to India and Pakistan.

Second, with U.N. involvement in ousting Saddam, the U.S. will not have to foot the entire cost of long-term military action. By spreading around the responsibility to the rest of the world, other troops, carriers and supplies can be brought into the effort.

Third, once Saddam and his weapons are removed from the fore, the U.S. needs international help in nation-building. We need partners to come in and take part in the long process for establishing a stable and legitimate government in the post-Saddam era.

The U.S. undoubtedly has the might to go into Iraq, remove Saddam and diminish the threat of biological and chemical warfare. However, might does not make right. International cooperation in dealing with the potential threats Saddam poses legitimizes the operation and spreads the burden to all those who will benefit from the removal of a despot and a safer world.

Editorial Board: Cavan Reagan, Erin Randolph, Rachel Faber Machacha, Charlie Weaver, Zach Calef, Ayrel Clark.