"RJ, I have to agree with anon. You said you don't care what some countries think, then not two posts later you said you don't want to disregard the position of other countries."
I don't care what Red China, Russia, France, Zimbabwe, Syria, or Cuba think. (At least, what their governments think.)
I *do* care about those nations who are friendly to the US, and are cooperating with us, offering their blood and treasure, in order to stabilize Iraq.
Yes, it's all very subjective. Anti-war types will likely highly value the opinions of France and Germany while mocking the contributions of El Salvador and Estonia. Whatcha gonna do?
I'm surprised that anyone still thinks that the "Coalition of the Willing" was anything more than a "Coalition of the United States and the brow-beaten, the arm-twisted and the bribed."
How was the UK bribed? Or Israel? Or Australia?
There are more countries contributing to the effort in Iraq than in almost any other military action in world history.
Yes, the US has taken the lead. That's pretty much the way of the world post-WWII. But it was not "unilateral" by definition.
You're entitled to your opinion, RJ, but that seems rather naive.
Rick Atkinson, who was embedded with General Patrias' Screaming Eagles, the 101st, during the march to Baghdad a year ago has a different view. He wrote a book about it called "In the Company of Soldiers: A Chronicle of Combat."
He was on CNN's Lou Dobbs show Thursday and this is what he said:
DOBBS: Amongst the things that you've written in this book, in this climate, as you well know, one of the things you wrote of the 101st division, they were better than the cause they served. That is explosive in these times. What did you mean?
ATKINSON: Well, I think it's very important that we not confuse the warriors with the war. And this is a book fundamentally about the warriors and not their war. But it occurred to me, even before the war started -- and I certainly feel even more strongly about it now -- that the case had not been made sufficiently for an invasion of Iraq that was virtually unilateral without allies.
As a scholar of World War II, I come away from studying World War II, believing that nothing is more important than when you're waging a global campaign whether against the axis in the 1940s or global terrorism in the 21st Century than having a robust, righteous coalition. My feeling was we did not have that when the war started and certainly don't have it now. [Lou Dobbs 4/16/2004]
For all practical purposes, it was a unilateral invasion of Iraq, and we're paying the price for it now. Continuing to buy into the neocons' pre-invasion window-dressing is not helpful - it's time to get real so we can deal with the consequences.
Well, now you've added the qualifier "for all practical purposes." So I guess I was right. The invasion of Iraq was NOT "unilateral." But it was for all practical purposes "unilateral" to those who oppose the war.
I'm sick of hearing BRITAIN is a friggin' 'COALITION member'.
And the nerve of that cocky punk Blair standing there giving President Deer-In-The-Headlights a blow-job on in the Rose Garden on national TV (at least Clinton did it behind closed doors).
Here's an idea Prime Minister Thyroid-Gland-Problem: Send an additional 118,000 troops to IRAQ and then you can come before the American public and lecture us on what the fuck we're ALL doing over in that hell-hole.
This nit-picking discussion is a great example of how technically-true statements can produce a lie.
I would have thought that anyone who has raised a child (or been one) would know how that works, but apparently not.
Calling the invasion of Iraq "unilateral" presents a truer picture of what actually transpired than does the technically-accurate word "coalition."
"Coalition" masks the fact that the members of this group were not clamoring to invade Iraq for any reason, and that "unilateral" is a far better description of the reality on the ground.
Australia was brokering a trade deal and wanted to get better terms for their agricultural products (they got screwed, by the way). Slovenia and at least nine other countries were trying to get into NATO. Israel might have joined anyhow, but used this opportunity to press their request for a $12 billion aid and loan package. I don't know what Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Singapore and the Solomon Islands wanted but it's not reasonable to think that any of them had any desire to waste lives and lucre invading Iraq.
The invasion of Iraq was not a banding together of nations with a desire to remove Saddam. It was a coalition of the bought and the pressured. The enterprise was an American enterprise from start to finish (except there is no finish), a unilateral American operation, with other countries dragged in as window-dressing.
Of the the six billion people on earth, only a relatively few have been duped. Not surprisingly, a huge portion of those are in America.
What does "unilaterally" mean, then? Uni = One. Lateral = Side. One-sided invasion. And that's not true, unless the UK, Australia, Israel, and Kuwait all became one entity one day without my knowledge...
They are different countries who are all on our "side".
So I guess I was right. The invasion of Iraq was NOT "unilateral."
So what countries from Saddam Hussein's side of the conflict helped us invade Iraq?
Well, I guess WWII was a "unilateral" action of the anti-Axis countries, then? I mean, how many supporters of the NAZIs and Imperial Japanese were on the US-British side?
Anyway, this is all semantics. It's pretty much moot.
I'm just sick of hearing words used incorrectly to describe the War in Iraq.
US-led is fine. Unneccesary is acceptable. Reckless is subjective. But unilateral just isn't true.
Article comments
26 - RJ Elliott
"RJ, I have to agree with anon. You said you don't care what some countries think, then not two posts later you said you don't want to disregard the position of other countries."
I don't care what Red China, Russia, France, Zimbabwe, Syria, or Cuba think. (At least, what their governments think.)
I *do* care about those nations who are friendly to the US, and are cooperating with us, offering their blood and treasure, in order to stabilize Iraq.
Yes, it's all very subjective. Anti-war types will likely highly value the opinions of France and Germany while mocking the contributions of El Salvador and Estonia. Whatcha gonna do?
27 - RJ Elliott
"The Coalition of the Willing is a joke. Everyone laughs. Why don't you?"
Well, maybe the international communists and anti-Americans of all stripes mock it. But I tend not to disregard to position of dozens of countries...
Okay, I see now where you got me. Ambiguous and incomplete wording on my part. Mea Culpa.
The above would be more properly stated as:
"I tend not to disregard the contributions of dozens of countries [who are helping us out]..."
Again, I was not clear before. Sorry. :-/
28 - RJ Elliott
I'm surprised that anyone still thinks that the "Coalition of the Willing" was anything more than a "Coalition of the United States and the brow-beaten, the arm-twisted and the bribed."
How was the UK bribed? Or Israel? Or Australia?
There are more countries contributing to the effort in Iraq than in almost any other military action in world history.
Yes, the US has taken the lead. That's pretty much the way of the world post-WWII. But it was not "unilateral" by definition.
US-led? Sure. Unilateral? Lie.
29 - Hal Pawluk
You're entitled to your opinion, RJ, but that seems rather naive.
Rick Atkinson, who was embedded with General Patrias' Screaming Eagles, the 101st, during the march to Baghdad a year ago has a different view. He wrote a book about it called "In the Company of Soldiers: A Chronicle of Combat."
He was on CNN's Lou Dobbs show Thursday and this is what he said:
For all practical purposes, it was a unilateral invasion of Iraq, and we're paying the price for it now. Continuing to buy into the neocons' pre-invasion window-dressing is not helpful - it's time to get real so we can deal with the consequences.
30 - RJ Elliott
Well, now you've added the qualifier "for all practical purposes." So I guess I was right. The invasion of Iraq was NOT "unilateral." But it was for all practical purposes "unilateral" to those who oppose the war.
That's fine. Thank you.
31 - Hal Pawluk
No, it was unilateral to most of the world, Rj.
32 - RJ Elliott
Most of the people of the world are wrong, accoring to Webster's.
33 - RJ Elliott
Most of the people of the world are wrong, according to Webster's.
34 - Shark
USA: 130,000 + in Iraq
Britain: 12,000... um, that's TWELVE FUCKING THOUSAND TROOPS...
We could fit that many in an American Humvee.
I'm sick of hearing BRITAIN is a friggin' 'COALITION member'.
And the nerve of that cocky punk Blair standing there giving President Deer-In-The-Headlights a blow-job on in the Rose Garden on national TV (at least Clinton did it behind closed doors).
Here's an idea Prime Minister Thyroid-Gland-Problem: Send an additional 118,000 troops to IRAQ and then you can come before the American public and lecture us on what the fuck we're ALL doing over in that hell-hole.
35 - Natalie Davis
Most of the world's peoiple are wrong -- about many things accepted, sadly, as conventional "wisdom."
In any case, there was a Coalition of the Killing, so saying that the invasion and occupation are US-led would be the accurate statement.
36 - Hal Pawluk
This nit-picking discussion is a great example of how technically-true statements can produce a lie.
I would have thought that anyone who has raised a child (or been one) would know how that works, but apparently not.
Calling the invasion of Iraq "unilateral" presents a truer picture of what actually transpired than does the technically-accurate word "coalition."
"Coalition" masks the fact that the members of this group were not clamoring to invade Iraq for any reason, and that "unilateral" is a far better description of the reality on the ground.
Australia was brokering a trade deal and wanted to get better terms for their agricultural products (they got screwed, by the way). Slovenia and at least nine other countries were trying to get into NATO. Israel might have joined anyhow, but used this opportunity to press their request for a $12 billion aid and loan package. I don't know what Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Singapore and the Solomon Islands wanted but it's not reasonable to think that any of them had any desire to waste lives and lucre invading Iraq.
The invasion of Iraq was not a banding together of nations with a desire to remove Saddam. It was a coalition of the bought and the pressured. The enterprise was an American enterprise from start to finish (except there is no finish), a unilateral American operation, with other countries dragged in as window-dressing.
Of the the six billion people on earth, only a relatively few have been duped. Not surprisingly, a huge portion of those are in America.
37 - Natalie Davis
Hal speaks truth and makes an excellent point.
38 - JR
What does "unilaterally" mean, then? Uni = One. Lateral = Side. One-sided invasion. And that's not true, unless the UK, Australia, Israel, and Kuwait all became one entity one day without my knowledge...
They are different countries who are all on our "side".
So I guess I was right. The invasion of Iraq was NOT "unilateral."
So what countries from Saddam Hussein's side of the conflict helped us invade Iraq?
39 - RJ Elliott
Well, I guess WWII was a "unilateral" action of the anti-Axis countries, then? I mean, how many supporters of the NAZIs and Imperial Japanese were on the US-British side?
Anyway, this is all semantics. It's pretty much moot.
I'm just sick of hearing words used incorrectly to describe the War in Iraq.
US-led is fine. Unneccesary is acceptable. Reckless is subjective. But unilateral just isn't true.
40 - Natalie Davis
People have the right to use whatever language they wish. And you certainly have the right to be sick about it.