When President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 2003, he took a unilateral military action. His stated purpose was to increase US national security. Presidents Clinton and Obama favored more multilateral efforts when intervening in countries such as Kosovo and Libya. Is there a justification for the US to engage in unilateral rather than multilateral military action overseas?

Question

anonymous · Answer

This is a very long and opinionated question. I'll take a try at it without bias. but mostly likely you wont agree or you'll find a grey answer. BTW is this an essay?

anonymous · Answer

Lml i Know, Nah its Just a Short response.

anonymous · Answer

From a liberal (I'm a Democrat) point of view I'm gonna say multilateral. In international relations with multiple countries working in concert on a given issue (eg. terrorism). Some may call it a alliance Especially, if control is sought by a small power over a great power, then the Lilliputian strategy of small countries achieving control by collectively binding the great power is likely to be most effective. THE UN IS A BIG PART OF THIS IDEA

anonymous · Answer

United Nations did help with the invasion but did not like the way it was preformed.

anonymous · Answer

Also that idea is bad because in certain situations it would be terrible and could be disastrous.

anonymous · Answer

Thanks. your Amazing