Clark Lindsey notes (probably correctly):

Certainly one way to help insure that the exploration program continues past this administration would be to tie it closely with international partners as was done with the ISS in the early 1990s.

Based on history, it would also be a good way to insure that the program is delayed, over cost, and doesn't achieve its objectives. Back in 1993 NASA made a Faustian bargain. It would accept the need to make the station more "international" in exchange for keeping Congressional (and in that case, more importantly, administration) support. It won its appropriation by a single vote.

We went to the moon alone, and it was vastly successful, at least in terms of getting to the moon. There's no reason to think that bringing in other nations increases the probability of success, or reduce costs, even if it increases the probability of keeping the program alive politically. This is not a dig at other nations--it's simply a recognition of the degree to which bringing in other entities, with their own inscrutable politics (that, like ours, largely have nothing to do with space), can complicate and confound our own efforts. For recent (in the last four years) readers of this blog, I discoursed on this subject back in 2002.

Another way to give the program critical momentum would be to actually fund it, not just make a speech and then blame subsequent administrations when they're left with the bill for unfunded mandates. Since the Bush administration has failed to request even what Congress is willing to give, let alone what NASA actually needs, it begins to look like nothing more than can't-lose opportunism: If a subsequent administration has the guts and vision to fund the program, the Busheviks take credit; if not, they blame their successors. No actual commitment to space exploration need apply.

Just to be clear, I didn't mean to imply that I think tying the exploration program to international partners would be a good thing. (I actually think dumping the whole ESAS approach and starting over again would be a good thing.) It just seems an objective fact that the ISS survives because of the international involvement. So it might work again, though it would probably also result again in all of the problems that you list.
- C.

it's simply a recognition of the degree to which bringing in other entities, with their own inscrutable politics...can complicate and confound our own efforts.

Not to mention their own inscrutable hardware, no? My vague impression is that there was some annoying compromise on ISS because the Russians had their own way of doing stuff. I have a feeling, perhaps mistaken, that the Russian's oxygen generation system was an issue, safety-wise, since it caused that fire on Mir.

The compromise of ISS was that we had to put it into an orbit that's very expensive for us to go to at 51.2 degrees inclination, to allow the Russians to get their from their high-latitude launch site.

Apart from the high inclination, how have the Russians hindered the US progress on ISS?

Apart from the high inclination, how have the Russians hindered the US progress on ISS?

They took much of the money sent them to build modules, and instead invested it in dachas, Mercedes and Cayman bank accounts.

I think a better way would be to set achievable goals based on infrastructure so private industry can do the rest. Say build an orbital gas station and keep it stocked.

Apart from the high inclination, how have the Russians hindered the US progress on ISS?

Well, I can't say for sure, not being in the loop, so to speak. But read this and this and this.

I'm not an expert to know whether these kinds of warnings are the vaporings of fools or the obsessions of axe-grinders -- but they do seem worth thinking about.