Unilateral Action

One difference between GW’s administration and previous ones I can remember living through (Reagan, GHW, and Clinton) is that this one is far more likely to act unilaterally.

I was thinking about it when I read this:

British concerns did not appear to “materially” affect US actions in its “war on terror”, the UK’s intelligence and security committee has said.
The committee, which reports to the prime minister, was probing possible UK involvement in rendition flights.

It said America’s “lack of regard” for UK concerns had “serious implications” for future intelligence relations.

…

The committee said the UK services “used caveats specifically prohibiting any action being taken” when they handed over the intelligence on the men.

It says the UK security services did not foresee that the US authorities would disregard the caveats, given that they had honoured the caveat system for the past 20 years.

“This case shows a lack of regard on the part of the US for UK concerns – despite strong protests – and that has serious implications for the intelligence relationship,” the report concluded.

“In fighting international terrorism it is clear that the US will take whatever action it deems is necessary, within US law, to protect its national security,” it said.

“Although the US may take note of UK protests and concerns, it does not appear materially to affect their strategy; the rendition programme has revealed aspects of this usually close relationship that are surprising and concerning,” the report warned.

Note… this is the UK. Perhaps our closest ally. What does it say about people when even their closest allies have misgivings about cooperating with them?