WaPo: Why Doesn't Obama Say 'Coalition Of The Willing'?
![]() |
President Barack Obama AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais |
When President Obama discussed his strategy to fight the Islamic State in a televised address last week, he spoke of forming a “broad coalition” to save Iraq and Syria. Before the speech, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel talked about forming a “core coalition” to fight the insurgent army.
Wait — doesn’t this sound like the “coalition of the willing” President Bush assembled in 2003 to invade Iraq?
Since “coalition of the willing” is inextricably linked with Bush’s unpopular war, Obama may not wish to use Bush’s term as he contemplates further action in a country he tried to withdraw from. But unfortunately for the administration, the cat is already out of the bag. Even without a “coalition of the willing,” Obama is running into headline trouble.
The New Yorker: “Obama’s Coalition of the Willing and Unable.” Foreign Policy: “How Willing is Obama’s Coalition?” The Wall Street Journal: “Obama’s Lackluster ‘Coalition of the Willing.’”
In fact, the term isn’t a Bush-ism — among foreign policy wonks, “coalitions of the willing” have been around for at least 20 years. As one NATO research fellow explained in 1999: “Western military interventions, based on coalitions of the willing regardless of whether NATO is institutionally involved or not, have in reality become the Alliance’s core military mission.” President Clinton used the term as early as 1994 to describe multilateral action against North Korea. “The real question is could we have what has been called a ‘coalition of the willing’ that included as many nations as would observe the sanctions as possible,” he told ABC’s Sam Donaldson.
Read the full story: www.washingtonpost.com
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook