A good word for the cowboys

With the multilateralists, at least sometimes, process is the thing -- the search for unanimity and cooperation; everyone on the same page. The North Korea mess has not yet made the case against multilateralism, nor has the Iraq mess made the case for semi-unilateralism of the sort the United States ultimately pursued. And yet ... and yet...

If unilateralism can sometimes prove a snare, multilateralism is lowest-common-denominator strategy -- the diplomatic equivalent of a House or Senate vote on the eve of adjournment, when all that matters is getting out of town. The famous miscue in the Garden of Eden -- an early consequence of human pride -- appears to consign humans to an eternity of self-seeking and less than straightforward deal-making. The more parties involved, the greater the potential for accomplishing next to nothing.

Sometimes -- not all the time, but sometimes -- you want a "unilateralist" to announce what has to be done and to take charge of getting it done. The worse the United Nations gets, and that's pretty awful already, the clearer it becomes that "unilateralist" is no insult, save perhaps in fancy-pants newspapers and journals.

You need your "cowboys" now and then, ready to act on tested principles of virtue and honor. As for "multilateralism," shall we keep our eyes for a while on far-off North Korea? We might be about to learn something we should have known all along.