ABSTRACT
Internal debates about how to implement the Bush Doctrine of eliminating terrorism has clearly raised concerns in other countries that the United States would appoint itself the unilateral judge of whether a country is supporting terrorism, and the appropriate methods of responding to that support. The US rhetoric of coalition building has not assuaged these concerns, and in some instances may have deepened them. There are three main approaches to this issue: isolation, unilateralism and multilateralism. Isolationism persists in public opinion, but it is not a genuine strategic option for American foreign policy. American foreign policy in a global information age should have a general preference for multilateralism, but not all multilateralism. Multilateralists and unilateralists often dismiss each other's views with no little derision. Multilateralism is essential on intrinsically cooperative issues that cannot be managed by the United States without the help of other countries.
