Unilateralism, revisited

Previously I wrote that “good PR” was the only real benefit of a broad coalition. I was too glib. I ran across this in H.H. Scullard’s “A History of the Roman World, 753 to 146 BC”:

“The [Italian] allies supplied troops to fight alongside the Romans in their common interests, …Rome avoided levying tribute; she fought her battles side by side with her allies who thus felt the reality of their alliance. It was this policy of generating mutual interest and sentiment that won for Rome the hegemony of Italy and the power to unify its peoples into a nation. …When Pyrrhus and Hannibal came to deliver the Italian peoples from the yoke of Rome, they failed because the Italian confederacy preferred to remain loyal to Rome’s leadership.”

The Romans probably didn’t need every ally in their wars against the Veii or the Samnites. But when the duel with Carthage came, Rome needed every last man. In the Second Punic War the Romans called on their allies, raised a whopping twenty-five legions, fought for two decades from Spain to Libya to the Balkans, and emerged with a victory so complete it planted the seeds of the Pax Romana. Without their allies, Rome would have been reduced to a footnote in the annals of history.

Fighting shoulder to shoulder with your ally first creates and then deepens a bond of brotherhood and affection. By fighting a war without France or Germany, the United States is missing an opportunity to renew the bonds that hold old allies together. Normandy will not hold Nato together forever. In Iraq we are missing an opportunity to renew the alliance, and honor the sacrifice of sixty years ago.

Someday, a half century or more from now, we may find ourselves in another large-scale conventional war requiring mass mobilization. (History hasn’t ended, and never will short of the Parousia.) The United States might have the capability of winning in Iraq without Germany and France, but that surely cannot be said of every future possible war. A small coalition last year was probably the best option given the diplomatic environment, and the most efficient way to win the three-week conventional fight. To persist with the current coalition in the face of the unconventional fight and the difficulties in the reconstruction is unwise on its face. But more, to persist is bad long-term strategy. It may be time to reinvest in the alliance as a hedge against the vast field of future unknown unknowns.

Then again, we may be creating a new alliance from shared shed blood. Ask the families of, now, 59 Britons, six Bulgarians, one Dane, one Dutch, one Estonian, 18 Italians, four Poles, one Salvadoran, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and six Ukrainians.