How Many Allies Are Enough?

This section of last night's Democratic rebuttal to the SOTU by Gov. Gary Locke caught my eye:

We support the president in the course he has followed so far — working with Congress, working with the United Nations, insisting on strong and unfettered inspections. We need allies today in 2003, just as much as we needed them in Desert Storm and just as we needed them on D-Day in 1944, when American soldiers, including my father, fought to vanquish the Nazi threat. We must convince the world that Saddam Hussein is not America's problem alone — he's the world's problem. We urge President Bush to stay this course, for we are far stronger when we stand with other nations than when we stand alone.

Ah yes D-Day and the grand coalition that liberated Europe. Let's see now that would be United States, British, and Canadian troops who landed on June 6th in German occupied France. Oh sure there were some Free French forces involved and other assorted countries pitched in a frigate here or a transport there but the heavy lifting that day was done by us, the Brits, and the Canucks.

Today, when we move against Iraq it will be us, the Brits, and the Aussies making up the vast majority of forces involved. Other than swapping the Aussies for the Canucks we're talking about essentially the same countries invading Iraq as invaded occuiped France on D-Day. But today we're accussed of "unilaterism" just because the French and Germans aren't on board.

We don't need any more allies today. We've got enough to do the job just as we did nearly sixty years ago.