“We agreed to develop a ‘Coalition of the Willing,’ ready to defend a deal in Ukraine and guarantee the peace,” announced United Kingdon Prime Minister Keir Starmer. “We must proceed with strength, and that does now require urgently a ‘Coalition of the Willing.’”
You can watch the prime minister’s speech here:
Hmm. “Coalition of the Willing.” Sounds vaguely familiar, doesn’t it?It should. We used the phrase extensively in the lead-up to the Iraq war in 2002 and 2003.
“It’s very important for our [NATO] nations as well as all free nations to work collectively to see to it that Saddam Hussein disarms,” announced then-President George W. Bush in Prague. “However, should he choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a ‘Coalition of the Willing’ to disarm him and at that point, all our nations … will be able to choose whether or not they want to participate.”
Fewer than 50 countries ultimately joined Bush’s coalition. Notably absent were some of the biggest, loudest, pushiest supporters of Ukraine — including France, Norway, Spain, Germany, Canada, Sweden, and Finland.
America asked for their support. We asked more than once. They spurned us.
In fact, liberal critics in Europe, Canada, and America had an absolute field day lampooning the idea of a “Coalition of the Willing.” A snarky Salon columnist dubbed it the “Coalition of the Billing.” A British journalist called it the “Coalition of the Shilling.” Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV.) used the acronym C.O.W., claiming the U.S. was being milked as a cash cow.
And those nice, affable, aw-shucks Canadians? Ontario MP Carolyn Parrish called Americans “bastards” and declared, “We are not joining a ‘Coalition of the Idiots.’”
Loud, vicious, anti-American protests broke out all over Europe and Canada, condemning the United States as “warmongers” and shouting goofy things like, “No blood for oil!”
(Fortunately, we were able to sign up a few other countries in our “Coalition of the Willing” to take on Iraq — such international powerhouses as Rwanda, Palau, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Eritrea, and Afghanistan.)
“You forgot Poland.” (Sorry, Mr. Bush.)
Deborah Haynes, the security and defense editor for Sky News, suspects Starmer’s choice of words was deliberate:
The use of the term “coalition of the willing” to describe the nations that agree to support an international force to help protect any ceasefire deal in Ukraine is interesting and notable.
It could perhaps be an attempt by Sir Keir Starmer to appeal to an American audience as this was the phrase the United States used for its “coalition of the willing” to invade Iraq more than two decades ago.
That intervention ended in disaster, triggering a bloody insurgency and locking the US and its allies into a costly war, despite the successful toppling of Saddam Hussein.
But reviving the words “coalition of the willing” will — if nothing else — remind Washington that London was its biggest and strongest backer when it turned to allies to back its 2003 invasion.
If Hayne’s theory is correct, Starmer’s strategy will fall on deaf ears: Invoking the name and memory of Iraq is NOT going to sway Americans! Instead, it would do the opposite, because memories of a long, bloody, overseas war that wasted money and wasn’t in our national interest will push us farther away from Ukraine.
The Iraq War cost us $728 billion. About 4,500 Americans were killed. Over 32,000 were injured; the majority of whom were “wounded in action.”
Still the parallels between the Iraq war and the Russian-Ukraine war are staggering: In both situations, a “Coalition of the Willing” was asked to work outside of the strict confines of the United Nations to intervene in another country. Each time, the “bad” dictator was “literally Hitler” — an evil, power-hungry leader who violated human rights and invaded his neighbors — and both times, we were solemnly told the cost of inaction could very well be World War III.
Of course, our heightened interest in Iraq was mostly because we were less than two years removed from the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Obviously, President Bush had a vested interest in “connecting the dots” when foreign dictators funded, exported, and promoted global terrorism. Because, on 9/11, our homeland was directly attacked.
The same Canadians, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Germans, Norwegians, Swedes, and Fins who are now excoriating Trump for “abandoning” Ukraine had already abandoned America 20 years earlier.
Back then, we asked them for their help — but alas, the coalition wasn’t so “willing.”
So here we are in early 2025: After three years of bloody, barbaric battles between Russia and Ukraine, no NATO members have been attacked. The conflict hasn’t spilled over; the fighting’s been confined to those two countries.
That’s not good enough for the “Coalition of the Killing.” The European powers are pounding the war drums, demanding American military intervention.
No thanks. We’re not willing.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Programming note: Join us tomorrow for a rip-roaring live blog during President Trump's address to a joint session of Congress. All your favorite PJ Media personalities will be there with expert commentary, snark, and the funniest hot takes in conservative media. We launch at 8:45 p.m. ET. There's still time to sign up to be a VIP member so you can participate in our excellent, troll-free comments section. Our basic VIP plan starts at $1.63 per month if you use this link. A 60% discount will be applied at checkout.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member