The UN had actionable cause to invade and if the UN had invaded it would not have been unilateral. The US did not have actionable cause. Any attack without actionable cause is, by definition, unilateral. It matters not one bit how many are on "our side". It matters only that the "other side" must do something to justify our action. Iraq did nothing to justify our invasion. The invasion was unilateral -- one-sided.
Unilateral is an action. Multilateral is a configuration of parties. For example, you cannot have "unilateral talks". But you can have bilateral or multilateral talks. You can have "unilateral action", or you can have action in which TWO SIDES are engaged. Iraq was not engaged in our action -- they provided no reason for the US or a coalition led by the US to invade. You can clear up your confusion by answering the following question: Whose side are Britain and the other members of the "coalition of the willing" on? If you answer the US, you have one "side". Now, who is on the other "side". If you answered "Iraq" you would be right again. So what did Iraq do to justify an invasion? Did they attack us? No. Did they threaten to attack? No. The correct answer is, they did nothing. In this case there is only one side -- the attacking side (our side), and no provocation of the "other" side (Iraq). The action is, by definition, 100% unilateral. It takes TWO SIDES, not TWO OR MORE INVADERS ON THE SAME SIDE. If there are two sides, it is called "self-defense", not "multilateral". |
