I've been listening to some dolt on NPR saying that the U.S. and Britain have made a huge blunder by doing this "unilaterally" (ummm, that would be "bi-laterally," wouldn't it?), because we're squandering away the international sympathy for the U.S. Better, said he, to have pressed the attack as a large multi-national (read: U.N. contingency). Oh, sure.
Might as well send the following telegram:
TO: OSAMA BIN LADDEN
FROM U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL
REF: ATTACKS ON YOUR POSITIONS.
//ATTACKS WILL TAKE PLACE AT AREAS X, Y, AND Z AT 16:00 GMT ON 7 OCT 2001//UNITS A WILL BE AT LOCATION 1, UNITS B WILL BE AT LOCATION 2, AND UNITS C WILL BE AT LOCATION 3 AT +5 GMT THAT DATE//
//FURTHER NEWS REPORTS AS THEY DEVELOP//
//U.N. OUT//
Seems to me that we were unilateral recipients of the attack. And who's stopping the other nations of the world from hitting them, too? If other nations of the world want to help, by all means, get in there and get some!