“Shame on you. That is a perfect example of black and white thinking. Are you unable to imagine a larger coalition including commitments of troops and funding that are actually more sizeable.”
Hogwash as usual, Vroom. My point was that the charge of ‘unilateralism’ is not accurate - the proper argument for the Left is not the US acted unilaterally, but acted outside the scope of including the ‘cool kids’ in the world (Germany, France, and Kofi Annan).
The fact is the US had essentially the Anglo-American alliance (UK, Australia) along with Poland and smaller countries. Unilateralism it ain’t.
“For you black and white thinkers, we could have fifty countries providing 1 person each and we’d have a grand and effective coalition. Yep. It’s all black and white isn’t it.”
This is weak. A coalition is effective if it achieves its goals - whether it’s two or two hundred countries. As for the black and white thinking, that’s a natural instinct of people who actually make decisions and don’t have the luxury of limitless hands - ie, “on the other hand”.
“The world isn’t a yes or no decision. Life is more complex than that.”
“It might frustrate you when people raise additional complexities, but they don’t do it just to addle the brains of republicans. They do it because it reflects reality.”
It doesn’t frustrate me - especially when the complexities are the results of incomplete analysis. What you suggest, Vroom, is classic ‘paralysis by analyis’ - what happens when you are faced with imperfect choices but it’s your job to make them? At some point, a decision on war and peace has to be made. Complexities aside, you want leaders who aren’t waiting on the 8 ball to give them the guts to make a decision they simply don’t have to begin with.
Your faux-intellectual vanity - the assumption that you educate ninnies on the ‘realities’ that they just don’t see - is silly. My point was that a coalition of any size is not a unilateral action and critics ought not to label it as such.
As for the ‘complexities’ and ‘nuances’ of ‘coalitions’ - I’ll say that the terms ‘unilateral’ and ‘multilateral’ only describe the number of actors in a given action. The terms are morally neutral. I’d be perfectly comfortable with a ‘unilateral’ action if it was the right thing to do. Additionally, I would not support an action merely because it had multiple actors.
Of course, I understand the phrase ‘right thing to do’ gives you panic attacks, but in my mind, the number of actors in a given action does not inherently demonstrate any value, and the charge that the US acted ‘unilaterally’ is both false by definition and in measuring moral correctness.