One could argue that since the beginning of the 1980s, the United States has become increasingly influenced by international events and their effects on international diplomacy. The ending of the Cold War, retaining a position as the remaining superpower, and the beginnings of a worldwide war on terror have been important to any study of contemporary US history. 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?
Yes. Just so you know, I'm only in 11th grade, so I might not be using the right vocab, but I'll try my best. It can be justified the same way that it was during the Korean War. In order to repel communism in South Korea, the US troops were launched. This was a unilateral military action. In the same way that the US used the Monroe Doctrine to help aid and enforce their rule in other places, this is what happened during the Iraqi War. The US saw an unjust system of government reigning unfairly, so they intervened to overthrow it. The justification there was that they should have been able to choose their own government (in short, they should have a fair and free democracy).
A unilateral military action is justified given that The issue or the threat was oversea. And there was a lack of trust.
President Bush's decision can be justified given the threat to security that the country was facing. A unilateral military action here means that the US acted alone without any other influence or help from another country.
Engaging several other countries could lead the United States into a set back or a Sabotage.
Read more on https://brainly.com/question/16155394?referrer=searchResults
