Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/19/2003 03:50:00 PM (Archive Link)
I read so much from the left about multilateralism in the war on Iraq. Of course, the U.S. is being multilateral in its approach. As Colin Powell said, 30 countries are publicly in support of us and another 15 are privately so. It’s still not multilateral enough for the liberals, however. Apparently, war in Iraq is unilateral until absolutely everybody agrees with us. Because of this, I’ve come to the opinion that, for liberals, the end is multilateralism itself. The goal is not to remove Saddam Hussein, it’s merely to make sure everybody is in agreement on his removal. Once the agreeance (that’s for you, Fred Durst!) is reached, everybody can smile and go home happy because of a well-done consensus. Note that no actual action to remove Saddam would be taken… that’s not the goal, agreement is.

Conservatives, by contrast, have a goal and doggedly pursue it. If one approach doesn’t lead to the desired outcome, then another is taken. In the case of Iraq, if France doesn’t support removing Saddam and will veto U.S. efforts in the Security Council, then we will go around France and not use the UN. We can’t afford to have the goal threatened by non-agreement.

The big problem with the liberal goal of multilateralism is that it essentially removes American self-rule. As an independent state, the U.S. has the right and responsibility to act in its own best interests. If that means attacking Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, then that is what it must do. If America doesn’t act in its own best interests because it does not have a world consensus, you have ceded control of the country. In Iraq’s case, you have ceded control to France and Germany. Since they do not agree with action, you allow America to act in the interests of those countries which run counter to those of the U.S. Multilateralism essentially turns into French unilateralism. This is absurd and is one of the worst methods of governance.