another case of extreme Security Council overreach

Today the UN Security Council passed a press statement on the elections in Afghanistan. This statement went far beyond the Council's usual habit of just offering its opinion ("welcomes," "takes note of," "condemns in the strongest possible terms") and instead issued a blanket statement about how the world actually is which is demonstrably false.

The members of the Council ... reasserted that no terrorist act can reverse the path towards peace, democracy, and reconstruction in Afghanistan.

See, that's just not true. Of course a terrorist act can do this. In fact, it has. Quite recently.

The correct word, instead of "can," ought to be "should." "No terrorist act should reverse the path towards peace..." Or perhaps, "may." The terrorists "can" reverse peace but they "may" not, because the Council forbids it and condemns it in the strongest possible terms.

"Can," by contrast, is awfully optimistic.