Barack Obama criticized George W. Bush for launching a “unilateral” military attack against a Baathist dictator who used chemical weapons on his people.
Now it seems, Obama is preparing to — wait for it — launch a unilateral military attack against a Baathist dictator who used chemical weapons on his people.
In a story entitled “U.S. Prepares for Solo Strike On Syria After Britain Balks,” The Wall Street Journal reports:
The Obama administration laid the groundwork for unilateral military action in Syria, a shift officials said reflected the U.K.’s abrupt decision not to participate ….
But President Barack Obama is prepared to act without Britain, officials said, noting that unlike U.S. involvement in the 2011 military operation in Libya, the options under consideration in Syria are smaller-scale and wouldn’t require a coalition to be effective.
Nice try, but the liberal line is not that we need a coalition to be effective, but that we needed a coalition to be legitimate.
Liberals painted Bush as the go-it-alone unilateralist who alienated our allies, and promised that Democrats would usher in a new era of international cooperation. But while Bush rallied 30-countries to send ground forces to Iraq (after a four-nation led invasion), Obama can’t seem to find anyone to join him in firing a simple “shot across the bow” in Syria.
Recall how Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry mocked Bush for his “coalition of the willing” during the 2004 presidential debates?
In one debate, Kerry said, “We’re going to build alliances. We’re not going to go in unilaterally. We’re not going to go alone like this president did.”
In another, Kerry declared: “When we went in there were three countries, Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That’s not a grand coalition. We can do better.”
Apparently not. It seems even Great Britain is not joining us in Syria.
It seems France is still with us. Wonder if that now qualifies in Kerry’s mind as a “grand coalition”?