U.S. is the unilateral power in a multilateral world

[Geee]

Washington Examiner:

One thing on which there seems to have been agreement during the month-long debate about how the United States should respond to the uprisings in the Middle East, and in particular to the anti-Gaddafi rebels in Libya, is that we must not act unilaterally.
It is a terrible thing, Barack Obama and his leaders have implied, for the United States to do anything by itself. We must have allies and the approval and imprimatur of some multi-nation institution--it doesn't seem to matter much which one--before we take anything in the nature of military action.

This is not an argument but an impulse that can be defended as prudent. There is often some advantage in international affairs in acting with others.

But there's sometimes a downside as well. Multilateral forces can, in strict military terms, be more trouble than they're worth. Thus some of our NATO allies in Afghanistan have such strict rules of engagement that they are hardly capable of self-defense.

More important, there is a cost to giving a veto to other countries. Critics of George W. Bush's decision to take military action in Iraq never really explained why it was so important that we get the permission of France and Germany. Nor is it clear what moral force would have been added to the cause by the approval of Russia and China.