Actually the whole idea of the resolution was a bad one, but we did it because PM Blair needed it to be done. It is over now, and at last count there are 17 Iragi soldiers who have surrendered.
[ul]
[sup]Baking a cherry pie?[/sup][/ul]
This is the important issue. Yes, it was clearly wrong. Whatever leverage the Security Council had over Iraq was based on the implied or threatened use of force. Hans Blix made it clear that the Iraqis were disarming, somewhat.
In order to turn the trickle of disarmament into something resembling real compliance it was necessary for the Security Council to present a united front, somewhat. Iām not saying France had to do whatever the US said. I am saying that France, to keep the UN credible force-wise, should have staked out a less absolutist position on the use of force.
There was a member of the French Parliment interviewed last night on TV. He did not want to agree that the U.S. had enough votes to pass the resolution, but he did say that it was wrong for France to promise to veto, before the vote was taken.
By way of comparison, here is a list of US vetoes, implicitly supporting eg. apartheid and Israeli oppression.