"International cooperation" has become an interesting phrase. When its use in this kind of context is examined closely, it seems that only certain combinations of nations qualify.

For example, the war in Iraq involves the cooperation of a number of nations, not all of them small nations by any measurement. That the U.S. is carrying most of the military load is irrelevant--if the entire United Nations had gone in on the mission, that would still be mostly true. In Afghanistan, which does include the nations in the NATO contingent, the U.S. still has twice the troops of all the other nations combined.

Yet many people still routinely call the Iraq mission "unilateral." Obviously, we're missing the "right" nations to meet the definition of "international." Which ones would those be? List, please.

Another example might be the tsumani aid response. Almost every major nation responded on its own, yet for some people somehow it wasn't "right" unless the U.N. was in charge. Why? Who was missing that the U.N. would have brought in? I can't think of any major nation that didn't do something effective, and without it being "organized" by the U.N. Was this "international" or not?

As far as the first paragraph of your quote goes, it's interesting that it's mostly people on the Left who keep declaring that Middle Eastern people aren't "ready for" and "don't want" democracy.