"Unilateralism"

'Unilateralism' has become somewhat of a catchphrase boogeyman- it's getting blamed for everything to do with Iraq nowadays. It is an incorrect accusation, since it literally means "one power" or "one side", and there was irrefutably more than one power involved since the beginning (UK first, Australia too; Poland later, etc). Trigintalateral (‘thirty sides’) is slightly more accurate. But to set aside verbal snobbery for a moment, critics complain Gulf War II wasn't "real" multilateralism because a) other countries’ contributions are paltry and b) the coalition wasn't broad enough to be considered truly multilateral.

As for a) if allies can't contribute much, it is not the fault of the US but of European Defense Ministers and parliaments who refuse to fund and train and equip their forces to a state of actual readiness. However, even with a lack of funding, many foreign troops still give as much as they can; even the last full measure: complain to the families of 58 Britons, five Bulgarians, one Dane, 17 Italians, two Poles, eight Spaniards, two Thai and one Ukrainian that they're not giving enough.

As for b), it seems clear that the distinction really isn't between 'unilateral' and 'multilateral' action, if we are going to speak correctly (and words do matter), but between a broader coalition and a narrower one. The cost of broadening a coalition is 1) increased time gathering it together, 2) less efficiency in its operation, and 3) possible compromise in its political goals. We saw the result of 3) after Gulf War I where Bush (H.W.) had to leave Saddam in power lest some coalition parterners desert him--and Saddam spent another decade torturing and murdering his people. We saw it in the aftermath of WWII when FDR and Truman compromised away the freedom of Eastern Europe to placate the Red Army.

What compromise might we have seen with a broader coalition in Gulf War II? Would Russia, incapable of its own free and fair elections, be a reliable ally in our war to spread democracy to Iraq? Would Saudi Arabia, a nation that jails Christians who build churches, fight to establish religious liberty in its neighbor? Bush (W.)'s trade off of more efficiency, a quicker war, and fewer compromises was probably worth the loss of good PR which, in the end, is the only real benefit of broader coalitions.

The US could use some good PR in the rest of the world these days; I'm the first to complain about the need for more 'public diplomacy', and I cheered when Bush in his recent State of the Union announced an expansion of the Voice of America radio network. But if the US has to spend some political capital (some popularity) in order to liberate an oppressed land and spread democracy, that's okay too. I think we'll get it back.