[This is a repost. Original article and comment lost after the recent server move.]

I hear from the Democrats that the US has been too "unilateral" in it's actions towards Iraq and as a corrective measure they generally endorse outright or imply, we should "internationalize" the occupation forces. We should hand over transition authority to the United Nations or something; get more countries involved.

But if you examine the current discussion around the Madrid terrorist bombings, it seems a great deal of people believe the attacks were carried out primarily because Spain was militarily involved in the war. There is also talk of al Qaeda (whom it's believed is either tied to the group that did the attacks or directly responsible) openly pondering terrorism on other nations that supported the US in Iraq, such as Britain, Australia, Italy, or Japan. So step back and add two and two together.

If we reconfigure our strategy and go all multilateral on Iraq's ass, doesn't that mean all of a sudden our terrorist enemies will have a much greater selection of nations to attack? Doesn't that mean we expose the nations in the internationalized force to direct reprisal? Wouldn't that be a serious consequence worth considering before just falling back on one of the most irritating default Democratic positions: that any efforts abroad be done in coalitions and through multilateral institutions?

It is well-known that large majorities in most western industrialized nations (the ones most likely to participate in any such coalition action) are opposed to Iraq War II and are facing tough financial times. Wouldn't it be in their interest to want to stay out of the Mesopotamian Meat Grinder? Wouldn't it be in the interests of their political leaders? Domestically, it isn't hard to draw a line from Democratic statements to the outcome of reducing US troop losses...and thereby increasing the proportion of casualties other nations suffer. It often seems the Democrats are more aligned with the political systems of other nations than ours, but the stance they take on the Big Issue of the day would necessarily cause harm to the armed forces of those nations and further expose them to terrorist attack.

So why advocate such a course of action?