Why I am a Unilateralist

By Crispin Sartwell

"Unilateralism" is a pejorative term. It is the current malediction of choice in application to the Bush administration, both at home and abroad, for having conquered and occupied Iraq over the objections of France, Germany, Russia, and most other nations. It is a slightly polite way of saying "arrogance," and it is being tossed out continuously by the Democratic candidates for president, as well as by most anyone Bush might talk to in England and Europe on his travels.

Now as someone who believes the war is wrong, I am likely to lend a sympathetic ear to almost any argument with that as its conclusion. But not this one. That we should not have attacked Iraq does not entail that we should have put the decision - or that we should put our foreign policy - in the hands of France or of the United Nations. The American government is, sadly, responsible for the security of our borders and our people. If the claim that Saddam posed an immediate, serious threat to those things had been true, it would have justified the attack, even if France, or indeed every person in every part of the globe, disagreed entirely.

I am not interested in answering to a world government or forming up a world army. As horrifying as nationalism often is, internationalism is likely to be a nightmare of epic, or indeed species-extinguishing proportions, as every dramatic growth of the power of the political state has been matched by a dramatic growth of genocide. Frankly, I'd see all existing nations splinter into tiny tribes before I'd see us under the thrall of a single world power, mellow and reasonable as Kofi Annan seems.

I did not participate, even by opposition, in the election of the Prime Minister of France or the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The United States has its own interests and, I still hope, its own heart: somewhere out in Montana, or for that matter in South Central LA, there lurks an ethic of individualism and autonomy and independence that is the essence of American history and the American character. That is not, putting it gently, the political heritage of Germany, Russia, or Syria. The rulers of those countries are not answerable to our people or our values or our needs. If they don't like what we're doing, let them whine about it, and by all means let's minimize their opportunities to influence it.

Now of course, if we're going to declare war and prosecute an occupation unilaterally, we can hardly require or expect folks from other parts of the world to bail us out when things go wrong. Were I France or the United Nations, I'd literally be laughing about Bush's attempt now to embroil me in a policy I all along opposed. Many have urged Bush, in the wake of the problems we now face in Iraq, to belatedly embrace multilateralism, perhaps even to turn the whole mess over to the UN, if they'd have it. Not only would such a policy be late; it would be wrong.

If we're proud enough to go unilateral, we had better be proud enough to pay the price of our own policies. Bush is looking for financial and political cover for a deeply corrupt policy and its botched implementation, and no one should give him any, even if that would be the multilateral thing to do. Let him eat it, and let him answer to the American electorate for it in 2004. Kofi: if you help with the occupation or the rebuilding, you're also helping with the re-election. Think about it.

Crispin Sartwell's book "Extreme Virtue: Truth and Leadership in Five Great American Lives," will be published momentarily, if it has not already been.