In his speeches on foreign policy problems, President Obama reverts again and again to the idea that the United States should only act “multilaterally” — with other nations as partners. The clearly intended implication is that acting “unilaterally” — without support from other nations — is somehow immoral. Better to “lead from behind” rather than — horrors! — act alone.
But which president has acted more multilaterally? In 2003 George W. Bush brought more than 30 nations into a coalition of the willing for military action against Iraq. Obama this year claims eight or nine nations are supporting our military action in Iraq and (perhaps) Syria, but at least initially most or all of them are not providing any actual military support. Some may still do so, which is fine. But the idea, deeply embedded in the minds of the chattering classes and mainstream media, that Bush was stubbornly unilateral and Obama is open-mindedly and generously multilateral runs directly contrary to the facts.
Nor is it apparent that acting multilaterally is more moral or more effective than acting unilaterally. Neville Chamberlain had support from the French on Munich: neither moral nor effective. Having allies may convince those who regard the United States as a serial oppressor that we are for once acting morally; and Obama may be one of those people.
But others will make their judgments, reasonably, on a case-by-case basis. As for effectiveness, read Rick Atkinson’s accounts of American forces in the European Theater in World War II if you think that having allies always makes things easier. Managing an alliance was very hard and often thankless work and required a high level of skills. Dwight Eisenhower was widely admired for having developed those skills, which made him seem qualified for the presidency — and more so than other generals who did not have such arduous alliance management responsibilities.
I think a fair reading of World War II history — or of recent military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan — is that there are both advantages and disadvantages to acting multilaterally. Reasonable people will differ on whether it’s worth going multilateral, as opposed to acting unilaterally, at any given time. And that the balance of advantages and disadvantages may change from month to month and day to day.
There’s a widespread assumption, however, that most Americans prefer multilateral to unilateral action, and that they will be more inclined to support foreign policy initiatives — particularly military action — if it is pitched as multilateral. But maybe that’s not so.
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs has sponsored one of its periodic in-depth surveys of American opinion on foreign policy. In the report, titled “Foreign Policy in an Age of Retrenchment,” it finds that Americans do not put any discernible premium on acting multilaterally. Tufts Professor Daniel Drezner, who served on the Chicago Council’s advisory board on the survey, summarizes its conclusions as follows:
“The American people don’t give a flying fig about multilateral support. The Chicago Council conducted a survey experiment to see whether multilateral support would affect public attitudes for deploying U.S. troops. In the past, multilateral support of one kind or another usually primes respondents to look more favorably toward intervention.
“The Chicago Council’s finding? On a wide range of possible situations where military force might be used – including in Syria, defending South Korea, ensuring the oil supply, Russia invading the rest of Ukraine, and others – there are no discernible differences in views among Americans toward the use of U.S. troops when multilateral action is not specified, as part of a coalition of like-minded allies, or as part of a U.N. Security Council authorized military mission.”
Make mine multilateral? Not necessarily.
