Multilateralism: Don’t Be Caught With Your Pants Down

Over at the Dark Window we’ve been ‘covering the coverage’ of the Democratic National Convention. Yesterday, we learned that the Christian Broadcasting Network has hired Zombie Pilgrims to provide a conservative Christian analysis of the proceedings. Today, we’re going to change gears slightly and look at a conservative counterpoint to one of the main arguments put forth by the Democrats yesterday: the idea that the world has become less safe since we’ve alienated our friends and decided to handle things the Bushman way.

Fortunately, Joseph Farah, editor and CEO of the highly-acclaimed conservative “news” source World Net Daily, has offered several fine arguments to counter evildoers like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

So much for multinational coalitions

When the Philippine government agreed to terrorist demands to withdraw its troops from Iraq, it illustrated once more the problem with multinational coalitions.

Kind of like how when Joseph Farah agreed to start World Net Daily, it illustrated once more the problem with Wing Nuttery. Want an example? One needn?t look any further than Joe?s reason for disliking multinational coalitions.

This is what John Kerry wants.

This is what Kofi Annan wants.

This is what Ted Kennedy wants.

This is what Jacques Chirac wants.

Sometimes I think Joe wouldn?t wear pants if he could help it ? simply because Jacques Chirac does.

They don’t want the United States to take any unilateral military action to defend its national interests and the security of its people.

What sane person does want that? It?s hard for me to imagine a time when acting alone is preferable to acting in concert with dedicated allies. Since Joe likes to spout scripture so much, perhaps he should take a fresh look at Ecclesiastes 4:12:

Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.

One might even say that Mr. Farah?s espousing a decidedly anti-Biblical position!

And for the record…In spite of the fact that John Kerry doesn?t want us to fight all of our battles alone, he?s on the record saying he?d do it if necessary. The Wing Nuts seem to have trouble remembering this.

They want the United States to take all the risks, pay all the costs, bear all the burdens in protecting itself and the rest of the free world, but only if it can do so with the acquiescence and cooperation of many other nations who have little at risk.

Am I reading that correctly? Did he really just say that Kerry and company want multinational coalitions because it means we?ll have to pay all the costs and take all the risks?

Why don?t you put your pants back on, Joe, and give these matters a little more thought.

The United States built such a coalition in Iraq. Some 36 nations have been involved ? though, admittedly, only a few are making significant sacrifices in their commitments.

Kind of makes you wonder if our beloved Bushman’s coalition is really all he made it out to be.

But such coalitions, unfortunately, are only as strong as their weakest links ? as the world has witnessed with Spain’s capitulation to terrorism and now the Philippines’ unconditional surrender.

And since a coalition is only as strong as its weakest link, we should never enter into one again because nobody else is as strong as we. USA! USA! USA!

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Joe’s right. We’re probably better off not having any friends. Or maybe he?s just sore because his friends don?t want to hang around him any more since he?s stopped wearing pants.

Let’s be sure the next time we enter into one of these multinational coalitions that we are doing it for the right reasons.

It shouldn’t be a numbers game. It shouldn’t be a big show. It shouldn’t be about the numbers of flags we have waving in our force. It shouldn’t be about diversity and political correctness. It should be about one thing ? winning the war.

Hey, Joe might actually have something there!

We’d be better off with a troop of Girl Scouts in our coalition than a 51-member outfit that is going to cut and run at the first sign of danger to one of its citizens.

We?d be better off still if we had an actual coalition dedicated to a common vision of fighting terrorism.

Let this be a lesson to all those wedded to the idea of these misguided, phony, show-and-tell alliances.

Uh, yeah. That actually sounds like a pretty good lesson. Not sure it’s the point Joe wanted to make, though.

Joseph Farah (state of attire thankfully unknown)


Comments: 3


Wait. Wait. We couldn’t get any help from actual countries willing to give us deep reserves of troops and supplies because they didn’t support what we were doing in Iraq, so we had to cobble together support from other countries that couldn’t give us as much help just to make it look like we had some sort of coalition.

So when this cobbled-together-for-show alliance didn’t hold together, that’s proof that we never should have had a coalition to begin with?

God I should not read political blogs before noon, makes my head hurt.


Okay, Joe, just tell me where the next 500,000 troops and $200 billion are coming from.


With all the hysteria and chicken scented testosterone pumped out by self-important wingnuts, it’s sometimes hard to recall that there can’t be a war on terrorism. It’s an impossibility. You can’t declare war on a tactic.

There is no war on terror. There are, however, lots of terrified people running around squawking about it. I guess a few arrests and some trials just won’t do it for them.


(comments are closed)