Has "The Left" Chosen sides?--or Not?

Big Book of the Moment, "The Shield of Achilles" by Philip Bobbitt,
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375412921/qid=1044265726/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-4783855-4524060?v=glance&s=books
is apparently weighing heavily upon the left in some places because of its authoritative critique of the UN as feckless, and the US as morally necessary.
http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,887184,00.html

"Why the Left is wrong on Saddam"
"With or without a second UN resolution, I support action against Iraq"
David Aaronovitch
Sunday February 2, 2003
The Observer
[SNIP!]
"In the mid-1990s, events in [Bosnia and Rwanda] convinced me that Noam Chomsky's definition of the sovereignty of nations as 'the right of political entities to be free from outside interference' had become a millstone around the neck of the world.

"Bosnia and Rwanda made the case for action, because inaction was far worse and its consequences were morally intolerable."

 

I don't understand the Chomskyite emphasis on sovereignty; the Prime Directive never made much sense on Star Trek, and it certainly doesn't make sense in real life.


Cheers,

 

Tom: I heard Chomsky speak several times at Torquemada, and it was absolutely chilling. His detachment from human suffering in pursuit of an extremely abstract righteousness--the perfect 20th century man.
There is a brilliant little book on Chomsky called "Partners in Hate" by a prof at UBC (I don't recall his name). Well worth reading.