Leadership By Any Other Name
by Christopher G. Adamo
Among the innumerable charges leveled against President Bush in regard to the Iraqi situation was the accusation that he had acted “unilaterally”. In essence, the President determined that military action against Saddam Hussein was necessary, and would thus be carried out by the United States regardless of any approval (or lack thereof) from the rest of the world. Responding to such charges, high-level administration officials have continually stated that America is operating as part of a “coalition.”
But insofar as Donald Rumsfeld upset the British a few weeks ago by his assertion that the United States intended take to out the Hussein regime, and would go it alone if necessary, it can be concluded that the U.S. is indeed acting unilaterally. However, in light of Margaret Thatcher's assessment of consensus as being “the negation of leadership”, it does not necessarily follow that unilateralism is inherently and universally bad. Ronald Reagan clearly didn't think so when he ordered the invasion of Grenada.
If President Bush is, in fact, following the right course of action in order to secure American safety and bolster the stability of the Middle Eastern region, is his effort any more or less justified by whether or not a bunch of culturally and philosophically rudderless nations decide to tag along?
Granted, Iraq acted unilaterally when it invaded Kuwait, but that situation was rendered different both by its motives and its methods. It could not have been legitimized in any way by the involvement of other equally despicable powers that might have concurred and collaborated. The case can also be made that Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia was a multilateral effort, abetted by the self-interests of several European nations, including Great Britain, France, Poland, and Hungary. Certainly their assistance didn't legitimize Hitler's actions.
In his April 4, 2003 article, columnist David Limbaugh inarguably makes the case that the Democrats intend to exploit this issue as part of their campaign strategy in 2004, with Democrat Senator John Kerry having already fired the initial salvo. It promises to be a difficult and uphill battle. Among average citizens, the entire subject of “unilateralism” as opposed to “multilateralism” has about as much emotional impact as that raging debate which occurred in 1995 between Congress and the White House, over whose numbers to use during that year's budget battle. Though hugely significant to Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton, the majority of Americans regarded the affair as just more partisan wrangling.
To most people in this country, a President who is willing to “go it alone” when necessary, is highly preferable to one who seeks to submit himself to the posturing of other countries or the whims of a toothless debating society like the United Nations. Such resolve is the very definition of leadership. However, a refusal to do what needs to be done, merely for fear of disapproval from abroad or derision from the network anchors, is likely to be looked upon as a total abdication of presidential responsibility and the Oath of Office.
It is crucial for President Bush and the Republicans in Congress and the Senate to recognize that success for the Democrats is possible only if the Republicans, and the Bush administration itself, appear to be acting guilty in response to the accusations made against them. In the past week alone, much as been said by the Bush Administration, in attempts to justify U.S. actions based on the consent of other nations rather than the amazing success of those actions. Those establishing policy seem to be shifting to a defensive posture about an issue for which they owe no one an apology.
Thank goodness neither the President nor the Senate Republicans have reacted similarly to Democrat attempts to blame them for malfeasance in the Estrada situation (Where the case can be made that Republicans are acting in a “partisan” manner, God Bless them!). Were they to do so, the battle for the judiciary would ultimately be lost.
If the President and his key spokespeople respond to charges of “unilateralism” only through denials, and fail to steadfastly make the case for the legitimacy of U.S. actions regardless of any consensus among invertebrate Europeans, his opponents will tirelessly work to establish it as a pivotal issue. And at that point it is all but assured that Democrats and the liberal punditry will redefine “multilateralism” as being only those international actions which occur with the unanimous and unconditional blessings of the French, Germans, and Russians.
|
