Why Can't Applebaum Simply Admit That She Favors A Full-Scale Invasion of Syria

I have heard an argument floated in relation to Syria that I find absurd: that we need to arm rebel factions to the point that they can imminently topple the Assad regime, and once that happens all of the parties can be brought to the bargaining table where they'll hammer out a lasting peace agreement. First, it's difficult to imagine the argument being made in a context in which the speaker hoped to preserve the government that is under threat. History tells us that defenders of the government will take the opposite position - that peace talks won't be possible until the traitors and terrorists lay down their arms. Second, that's not a context in which either side is likely to want to run to the bargaining table. The government in danger of being toppled has too much to lose, and the "rebel factions" that are poised to depose the government have little incentive to lay down their arms and accept a deal that keeps the threatened regime in place. Third, in a case like Syria's, there are many armed factions. You would not only have to convince every significant faction to join and maintain a ceasefire, you would have to broker a peace deal that they all found satisfactory, and that they all trusted to the point that they don't turn their guns on each other or insist upon carving the nation into territories under the control of various warlords.

Nonetheless, I was not surprised to see Ann Applebaum implicate that argument,

Back in June, the Group of Eight called for “urgent” peace talks. But there are no negotiations to speak of, in part because the Syrian rebels continue to hang on for Western military support that always seems to be just around the corner but never quite materializes.

The rebels are too weak, and too much in danger of losing, to engage in peace talks? Then why, dare I ask, does Applebaum suppose that turning the tables on the government will make Assad's regime rush to the negotiating table?

Applebaum's piece is snarky, first at Clinton for not acting quickly enough to intervene in Bosnia, and next at President Obama for not acting more quickly in Syria. Applebaum suggests that Presidents should not engage in rhetoric about foreign leaders needing to change their ways or resign unless they're willing to promptly back up those words with military force.

Two decades ago, five years ago and today, the source of the problem is the same: The president of the United States wishes to represent things — justice, fairness, international norms — that he cannot, or will not, or doesn’t know how to defend in practice. In the future, it would be far more just, and far less cruel, for the president, and the rest of us, simply to say nothing at all.

I am not convinced by Applebaum's suggestion that the world, upon hearing the President call for a foreign leader to step down, understands that to be a threat of invasion if the leader chooses to remain in power. I think her implication that a government should not make a statement on an undesirable foreign situation unless it is either prepared to take military action or immediately qualifies its comments, but we're not going to do anything about it, is just plain wrong. We can't criticize human rights in China unless we're prepared to invade? We can't press for the release of dissidents in Burma and call for free elections unless we're prepared to invade? Come on.

Applebaum argues that the President has threatened force in Syria, then backed away from the threat, then again threatened force.

For example, in August 2011 Obama declared: “For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” To Syrians fighting on the ground, that may have sounded like a promise that U.S. military support, or at least substantial military aid, was imminent.

May have? It also may have sounded like the President was saying that it was time for President Assad to step aside, and it may well be that they were smart enough to figure out that there was no actual or implied threat of imminent military action.

This June, the White House authorized the CIA to begin arming some of the Syrian rebels. This sounded even more like a promise, but as of last week that aid also had yet to arrive.

Were Applebaum more honest, she would share the reasons for that delay as stated in her own source, the anything-but Obama Administration-friendly Wall Street Journal,

U.S. officials attribute the delay in providing small arms and munitions from the CIA weapons program to the difficulty of establishing secure delivery "pipelines" to prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands, in particular Jihadi militants also battling the Assad regime.

By virtue of her marriage, Applebaum has very close ties to the international diplomatic community, and certainly has many people in her virtual Rolodex from whom she could easily get a reality check on the Administration's concerns. If she believes that the officials are incorrect, she could present a cogent argument to that effect. The fact that Applebaum instead chooses to misrepresent the reason for the delay suggests that she's not trying to be balanced, or even accurate.

The president famously declared a year ago that the use of chemical weapons constituted a “red line” in Syria. But now that the red line has been crossed, the president has decided that he needs congressional support before he can respond. This is perfectly legitimate — but shouldn’t it have been obtained earlier, at the time the promise was made? Certainly the Syrian regime interpreted the president’s sudden and unexpected desire for congressional support as a “historic American retreat.” Its media gloated accordingly.

Okay... so it's "perfectly legitimate" for the President to go through Congress before launching a military action, but it also is honest for Syria's state-controlled media to characterize that legitimate action as a retreat? Which does Applebaum want - for the President to follow statutory law and the text of the Constitution, or to cast those trivialities aside to prevent a propaganda sheet in Syria from misrepresenting what it means to follow democratic process?

As for the notion that the President could have sought Congressional pre-approval for military action in the event of Syria's use of chemical weapons, that's true of pretty much anything the President says on foreign policy - but you can't take everything to Congress. Why does Applebaum believe Congress would have gone along with such a request, that Boehner and the Tea Party would be ready to give the President the discretion to initiate a military action based upon something that few at the time believed was likely to happen? Does she believe that the Republicans would have been more cooperative a year ago, when the use of chemical weapons was considered unlikely, than they are today when their use has been documented? If so, I would love to hear her explanation.

If you wanted to do so, you could read something sinister into these tactics. Perhaps, some unnamed officials suggested to the Wall Street Journal this week, these delays and sudden changes are intentional: Perhaps the administration’s point is to “tilt” the fighting away from Assad but to prevent an outright rebel victory — in other words, to prolong the war.

Unnamed officials? So we're talking about what... leaks within the White House, suggesting that the President is only following what Applebaum deems to be a legitimate course of action because he hopes to perpetuate the civil war? Let's turn back to the WSJ:

Many rebel commanders say the aim of U.S. policy in Syria appears to be a prolonged stalemate that would buy the U.S. and its allies more time to empower moderates and choose whom to support.

"The game is clear to all," said Qassem Saededdine, a spokesman for the U.S.-backed Free Syrian Army's Supreme Military Council. "When it comes to the interests of superpowers…the average Syrian comes last."

Some congressional officials said they were concerned the administration was edging closer to an approach privately advocated by Israel. Israeli officials have told their American counterparts they would be happy to see its enemies Iran, the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah and al Qaeda militants fight until they are weakened, giving moderate rebel forces a chance to play a bigger role in Syria's future.

So while Syrian rebels are depicted as being frustrated that the White House is not simply arming everybody, but appears to be considering arming only those groups whose goals are not hostile to U.S. interests, something that is consistent with the facts, these unnamed "congressional officials" are imagining a secret conspiracy between the Obama Administration and Israel. One can hardly imagine why they don't want to attach their names to the accusation....

I'm curious, also, as to what it means to be a "congressional official". I know what a Member of Congress is. Their staff members aren't officials. I can see why Applebaum chose to say only "officials", but knowing the context I don't find the omission to be particularly honest.

If so, this administration is even more ruthlessly cynical than its critics have maintained, and Syrian conspiracy theorists are right on the mark.

Except the Syrian statement wasn't a conspiracy theory. The Syrian statement was sensible and consistent with the Obama Administration's statements on the provision of military aid - it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that the Obama Administration hopes to "empower moderates and choose whom to support". It was the unnamed congressional "officials" who were pushing the conspiracy theory and Applebaum herself who is choosing to treat it as a serious possibility.

But whether that is true hardly matters because the effect is the same:...

No, I think the truth does matter. First, I think it matters that columnists like Applebaum try to present the truth, rather than misrepresenting their sources and giving air to conspiracy theories before concluding that truth is irrelevant. Second, I think it does matter if the President's delay results from his taking care to avoid potentially turning Syria over to a government not far removed from the Taliban. To somebody who favors such an outcome that may constitute putting the interests of the average Syrian last, but for those who want Syria to have a more enlightened future the truth lies in the opposite direction.

As happened in Bosnia, American pontification, prevarication and postponement in Syria have preempted the policies of others and delayed negotiations. The civil war continues; with every month the devastation increases, the refugees multiply and the levels of political extremism rise. Back in June, the Group of Eight called for “urgent” peace talks.

Such alliteration. It's always fun when a columnist gets in touch with her inner Safire. What's missing is any explanation of how the Administration's failure to... I guess, invade Syria or at least indiscriminately arm its rebel factions without concern for their goals or whether weapons end up in the hands of terrorists... has preempted the polices of "others". Who are these "others", what are their "policies", and why are they sitting somewhere, invisible, silent, and unnamed, as Applebaum takes up their cause. I understand why Applebaum's "It's a conspiracy between Obama and Israel" officials don't want to be named, but this isn't the first season of Lost - who are these others?

The Group of Eight... That wold be Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the U.K., the E.U., and the United States. Of those eight, the U.S. is proposing military action, France has indicated that it won't act unless the U.S. first authorizes military action, the U.K. and Germany have voted against military action, Russia is protesting that Assad is innocent, the Prime Minister of Canada has stated that he has "no plans" for a direct military mission, Italy insists that any military action should be preceded by a U.N. mandate, and Japan is sitting on the fence pending a final U.S. decision. Which of those nations does Applebaum believe to be more hawkish than the U.S., and to have had its plans and hopes crushed by the fact that the U.S. is exercising caution and following constitutonal process?

I was curious, given the circumstances, to see what Poland had to say about the issue. Would Poland be a pillar of Applebaum-endorsed virtue, ready to do the most it could to punish the criminal Assad regime?

Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced last week that Poland will not be taking part in any military action in Syria, though Minister Sikorski said on Monday night that he has told US secretary of state John Kerry that, “Poland does not have the capability [to take part in a military strike] but understands the situation”.

As President Obama tries to win support from Congress for a military strike, Minister Sikorski said in an interview with the TVP public broadcaster: “In my judgement a chemical attack occurred, most likely by the Assad regime. The use of weapons of mass destruction against civilians, their own citizens, is unacceptable”.

“The use of chemical weapons in the twenty-first century sets a very dangerous precedent,” Sikorski said, adding that, "President Obama's decision to give more time to convince the US Congress gives a chance for Russia and China to change their positions.”

So the official position of Poland, as articulated by Applebaum's husband, is that (a) Assad probably used chemical weapons, and that is wholly unacceptable, (b) Poland won't contribute so much as a Zloty toward any military action, and (c) the Obama Administration is correct to go through Congress and the associated delay could help the world achieve a diplomatic solution?

Perhaps the Applebaum household is among those in which the spouses simply don't discuss politics.....

The Presumption of Innocence and American Values

If you've attended law school, "I'm a law professor" loses much of its impact as an appeal to authority, but sometimes you just have to wonder.... A law professor at Fordham University, Thane Rosenbaum, has posted an editorial at the Huffington Post that leaves me scratching my head. The gist of it appears to be that jury verdicts should always make sense to laypersons, even if they did not attend the trial, and that we could better achieve that by eliminating our adversarial system in favor of an inquisitorial trial system modeled after some unnamed country (or countries) in continental Europe. To Mr. Rosenbaum, it appears that the biggest flaw of our system is that we presume innocence, and that too many people he believes are guilty are acquitted.

Rosenbaum cites a whopping four examples of the justice system gone wrong, inevitably mentioning the O.J. Simpson case, but also mentioning the Michael Jackson trial and the more recent rape trial of two New York City police officers. Rosenbaum complains that "As civics lessons and as tutorials on the justice system", these cases "were devastating failures", but does he take the time to provide the much-needed civics lesson? To explain how those verdicts were possible within our criminal justice system? How a jury can be outraged by a defendant's conduct, see a lot of smoke, but still find that there's not enough evidence to declare that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope. He seems to instead propose that we simply take a "Where there's smoke, there's fire" approach to criminal justice and if a verdict doesn't resonate as just with the public it can only mean that the justice system is flawed:

Many of these same confounded citizens also threw up their hands with the O.J. Simpson trial: "There was blood in the Bronco, for God's sake, and he was running away from the police!" And there were those who wondered how the plain facts of the Michael Jackson pedophilia case resulted in an acquittal: "He was sleeping in his bed with children that weren't his own!"

Let's step back and look at his examples. The O.J. Simpson case. Let's admit it, the forensic evidence was overwhelming. Even if you believe that officer Mark Furhman planted evidence at O.J.'s house, or that there was a conspiracy to convict within the LAPD, there should have been enough evidence to achieve a conviction. Does this mean that Rosenbaum is correct? That the only lesson that can be drawn from the O.J. case is that our system is hopelessly flawed in favor of the defendant? Hardly.

First, the case was anything but a typical homicide trial, as instead of having an indigent defendant trying to scrape together a defense, or (much less likely) a middle class defendant bankrupting himself trying to scrape together a defense, you had an incredibly wealthy defendant sparing no expense on lawyers and forensic experts.

Second, you had two prosecutors of average skill who were by all appearances used to the overwhelming advantage they had over defendants, and did (or could not) adjust their tactics in the face of a defense that was as well-funded as the prosecution. (Better funded? I don't think so. A prosecutor can call upon state crime labs, police departments, in-house investigators, support staff, advice and support from other prosecutors, and similar resources, and in a case like O.J.'s I would venture that the sky was the limit.)

Third, you had the presentation of the forensic evidence in a manner that was more confusing than edifying. Had the prosecution treated the evidence as routine, the jury might have understood it. Instead they presented a multi-day lecture on DNA, likely both confusing the jury and taking away from how incriminating the evidence was. Was race a factor? Some say so, but I think the leading issues were that the prosecutors simply didn't present their case well, and made a number of other errors (e.g., having O.J. try on the bloody glove without knowing in advance that it would fit) that opened up unnecessary opportunities for the defense.

The Michael Jackson case highlights the wrongheadedness of Rosenbaum's approach. Under Rosenbaum's insinuation, there is only one reason an adult male would share a bed with someone else's child (and it ain't good). So let's go with that. We have parents who (like everybody else in the nation) knew of the first set of accusations against Michael Jackson, sought out Michael Jackson, insinuated themselves and their child into his life, and knew their child was sharing Jackson's bed. Even without assuming that "there can only be one reason...", you have to ask yourself, "What were they thinking?" If you accept Rosenbaum's insinuation, does it not follow that they were thinking, "There could be big money in this for us, just like there was for the first accuser"? And they consulted the same lawyer who helped negotiate the huge settlement from the first case? Rosenbaum is truly at a loss as to how the family ended up with a credibility problem that undermined the prosecutor's case?

As he brings up the Jackson case and that of the two police detectives, perhaps Rosenbaum should be offering a civics lesson in the importance of witness credibility, and within that context also bringing up the DSK rape accusation, a case that is in many ways analogous to the accusations against Jackson. He may want to take a look at the Feministe blog post, "There Are No Perfect Accusers". Both the Jackson and DSK cases involve defendants with a history of being accused of similar sexual impropriety, defendants who claimed that people were trying to set them up (not just in the specific case, but in general), and whose defenses rest primarily upon the impression that the accuser is a grifter.

Only three weeks ago, Strauss-Kahn evoked such a possibility in an interview with French newspaper Libération when he said he thought he was under surveillance and named the three principal difficulties he foresaw if he was to stand for the presidential elections.

"Money, women and the fact I am Jewish." He added: "Yes, I like women ... so what?" He said he could see himself becoming the victim of a honey trap: "a woman raped in a car park and who's been promised 500,000 or a million euros to invent such a story ..."

If we apply Rosenbaum's, "If there's smoke, there's fire" test to that claim, would it not be reasonable to infer that DSK was worried not so much about being set up, but about proactively laying a defense against accusations that might flow from his actual past conduct? Wouldn't a man who was seriously concerned about being set up take much better precautions against such a set-up? When you have an accuser and a victim, both of whom have serious credibility issues, how do you determine which side is "glaringly right"? And given his believe in the importance of public perceptions of justice, shouldn't Rosenbaum be comparing and constrasting those in the media who argue that DSK's rather incredible account of the events in his hotel room is "glaringly right" with those who argue that the final version of events described by the alleged victim is "glaringly right"? Under Rosenbaum's standard, is justice even possible in such a case? Whatever the outcome, some number of people will be offended by the disposition and believe that it represents a travesty of justice.

What is Rosenbaum's explanation for the difference between what occasionally happens in court - a defendant everybody "knows" is guilty is acquitted - and the court of public opinion?

There is an altered reality inside courtrooms. Everyone is breathing a different kind of air. Insulated by all that marble and mahogany, the talking head noise of cable TV and the common sense word of mouth on the street are blocked out by a mute button. What makes complete sense outside of the courtroom has no bearing on the legalistic jury instructions, the narrowed presentation of evidence, the presumptions of innocence and the burdens of proof that guide criminal trials no matter how simple and plain the facts appear and how indisputable the outcome.

From outside the courtroom, the legal system often looks as if it has no grip on the truth, or even worse, any concern or respect for the truth. But, of course, legal trials are, in fact, less interested in what is true than what can be proven.

On the whole that's true, but note how Rosenbaum's language suggests that the courtroom is some sort of ivory tower, while people passively watching news coverage and forming opinions based upon meta-analysis somehow know the "real truth". Note the absence of any sense of history, or explanation of why we have constructed a justice system in which the prosecutor must prove a defendant guilty, why justice is served by rules of evidence and by allowing the defendant to confront witnesses and challenge the evidence, and in which, no matter how heated the public reaction, it is desirable that cooler heads decide the case in court. Instead, Rosenbaum complains that while "legal experts "have lectured us" on the difference between a "not guilty" verdict and a declaration of innocence, "most reasonable, sensible, decent people are still left morally outraged by this purportedly correct legal outcome, and they won't easily be persuaded to appreciate the difference -- nor should they." Note the implicit accusation: If you disagree with Rosenbaum, you probably aren't a "reasonable, sensible, decent" person.

I'm not certain if, when Rosenbaum argues, "nor should they", he is trying to suggest that people should not be "easily be persuaded to appreciate the difference" between a finding of "not guilty" and a proclamation of innocence, or if he is arguing that people simply should not accept such a distinction. If it were the former, rather than complaining about "legal experts" attempting to explain how the justice system works, he should be attempting to do a better job of educating his readers. It thus appears to be the latter. Rosenbaum appears to be arguing that we should do away with the presumption of innocence and the legal standard of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", and perhaps even require that criminal defendants prove their innocence. To Rosenbaum, there appears to be only one form of miscarriage of justice - the type that occurs when somebody is acquitted despite a public perception of guilt.

It bears noting that such travesties of justice happen less frequently in other western nations.

Again, this guy is a law professor? If we're talking about countries that follow the common law tradition, which roughly translates into the English speaking world, the criminal justice system is very similar to ours, save for a slightly expanded opportunity for appeals by a prosecutor, made possible by the absence of constitutional language analogous to our Fifth Amendment. At the same time those nations don't have the U.S. notion of dual sovereignty, such that a federal prosecution can sometimes follow a state court acquittal. Either way, in most cases the prosecutor only gets one bite at the apple.

Rosenbaum limits his wistfulness to inquisitorial systems from continental Europe, apparently recognizing that systems of the sort he admires have a rather dismal record of achieving justice in the rest of the world. If you're charged with a crime in China, Burma, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or any number of other countries that purportedly follow an inquisitorial model, you're pretty much guaranteed that you will be convicted at the end of your trial's search for the "truth". How does Rosenbaum describe the inquisitorial model?

Instead of having both sides fight a zero sum game, the winner-take-all, scorch the earth contests that make American trials similar to its sporting spectacles, other countries place a higher value on having both the prosecution and the defense work to uncover the truth. After all, everyone in society benefits when the truth is known and injustice is not allowed to prevail.

Rosenbaum's first mistake is in his belief that the only people who benefit from the outcome of a trial are the litigants. Our system of justice was constructed upon the assumption that there is a benefit to society in ensuring that defendants receive a fair trial, and upon Lord Blackstone's formulation that it is "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". Otto von Bismarck is alleged to have taken the opposite view - that it's better for ten innocents to suffer than for one guilty man to go free. Perhaps Rosenbaum would attempt to distance himself from that philosophy in his endorsement of the European inquisitorial model, but it's fair to note that he failed to tell us what country he believes offers the best interpretation of that model.

Which country in Europe "gets it right", and how much more accurate in Rosenbaum's measure is their system of justice than that of the United States? Perhaps he is thinking of Italy? Probably not Bulgaria. Perhaps he's taken in by the manner in which France shields Roman Polanski from prosecution by the U.S., or how the Swiss justice system managed to deny his extradition to the U.S. in a manner that didn't create even a hint of controversy in the United States. Does Rosenbaum actually know anything about the legal systems in the nations of Europe and their imperfecitons?

A French appeals court today overturned the conviction of six people accused of participating in a pedophilia ring in northern France five years ago, unraveling one of the most mismanaged cases in French judicial history and leaving the nation asking how the court system could have gone so awry....

The case was marred by deep doubts from the beginning, said Yves Jannier, France's attorney general, speaking to the appeals court on Wednesday. He noted that the investigative report by police in July 2002 found "more doubts than certainties" in the accusations, but said, "no one had enough critical sense to stop the machine."

Sure, but how might the public have reacted had they believed that the magistrate was emphasizing the need for stronger evidence instead of seeking convictions? The French, after all, have concerns about their own system. But if you're not concerned about wrongful convictions, the influence of the wealthy and powerful on a system dependent on magistrates, or abuses that occur at the hands of the magistrates, an inquisitorial system may well seem quite appealing.

Rosenbaum concludes by strongly implying in the specific context of the Casey Anthony case, "the truth is known and injustice is not allowed to prevail". It's thus fair to ask, what is the truth in the Anthony case? Is Rosenberg claiming that he was able to sit back in his recliner, watch Nancy Grace rant and rave, and come to a precise conclusion as to when and how Caylee Anthony died? I do have sympathy for the idea that in an inquisitorial system in which the defendant's silence could be weighed against her, and in which the verdict were reached by a preponderance of the evidence, on the weight of the evidence and the massive weight of her lies Casey Anthony would likely have been convicted of some act in relation to her child's death, but the question would still remain open of exactly how the death occurred. Although Rosenberg seems to believe otherwise, absent a confession, the essential facts of Caylee's death are and will remain known only to her mother.

Perhaps the public would be satisfied with an inquisitorial splitting of the baby - "We don't know what happened, but we're going to infer from the mother's lies that she committed some act of abuse or neglect against her child and thus convict of second degree murder or manslaughter" - but such a verdict falls far short of an outcome in which "the truth is known". The distinction thus appears to be that when the truth cannot be determined, Rosenbaum would err on the side of convicting.

"How We Became the United States of France"

Worth reading. It probably would have been funnier yesterday, and it will probably seem less satirical tomorrow.

Personally, I'm in the "France is a nice place to visit, but..." category. That said, it's a really nice place to visit. If you're staying in Paris, check out the Hotel Saint James near Place Victor Hugo - tourists (who want to be a bit off the beaten tourist path) should check for good specials, and everybody else should max out the corporate credit card.

I Knew I Forgot Something....

Roger Cohen fills us in on his recent travel and shoulder-rubbing,

I dropped by the Élysée Palace to get a fix on things. The food was shockingly awful — tired crudités, desiccated hake, pasty potato purée — but the Château Batailley 2001 was a beauty. Seems President Nicolas Sarkozy’s too busy for solids.

I guess I forgot to enter "snacks with 'Sarko'"¹ on my travel calendar.... Maybe next time. Apparently Cohen sipped a bit too much of the wine, hence his conclusion for Obama:

My advice to him is: sobriety, sobriety, sobriety.

Is it just me, or is Cohen's editorial as lacking in substance as Sarkozy's described assortment of hors d'oeuvres for the foreign media?
______
1. Yes, in his column, Cohen refers to President Sarkozy as "Sarko". I guess it shows that you're hip and cool?

Mamet's a French Name, Right?

If David Mamet is reading this, any thoughts on the latest from "our greatest contemporary philosopher"?

Krauthammer on Perfidy

Oh, why didn't he see this coming.... Poor Charles Krauthammer and friends, taken in by the evil French:

But we underestimated French perfidy. (Overestimating it is mathematically impossible.) Once the resolution was passed, France announced that instead of the expected 5,000 troops, it would be sending 200.

Well, speaking of math, if it's not possible to overestimate French perfidy, then it follows that French perfidy is infinite. If French perfidy is infinite, you would have to be stupid to underestimate it. So when Krauthammer says "we", he would seem to be admitting to at least situational stupidity, which would be fitting given that he is almost always a fount of frothy irrationality on issues relating to the Middle East.

But step back for a moment here. This force, even at a "full" 15,000, would be tiny compared to our commitment in Iraq. Heck - it would be pretty darn small as compared to our commitment in South Korea - is that number still about 37,000? So what's really going on? Perhaps the U.S. realizes two things: First, anybody who deploys troops in Lebanon risks having troops killed, and second, Lebanon doesn't have oil. Perhaps Mr. Krauthammer needs to consider that despite this nation's overwhelming support for Israel's right to exist and be secure within its borders, we don't see a compelling need to shed U.S. blood to secure that nation's northern border.

Shaking his fist angrily at France and sputtering angrily about that nation's perfidy doesn't change the fact that the U.S. entered into the ceasefire deal without first getting troops committed to the peacekeeping force, nor does it change the fact that we're expecting those troops to come from nations other than our own. Despite the implications of his mathematical formula, surely Mr. Krauthammer would not contend that the U.S. or his beloved President were suckered into supporting the ceasefire deal - the Bush Administration's political leaders and diplomats joined it with their eyes wide open.

Krauthammer suggests two contexts when multilateralism is valuable:

This is considered a radical change of course. It is not. Even the most ardent unilateralist always prefers multilateral support under one of two conditions: (1) There is something the allies will actually help accomplish or (2) there is nothing to be done anyway, so multilateralism gives you the cover of appearing to do something.

Perhaps he doesn't recognize the Bush Administration's variant on #2: If you could do something but you don't care enough to invest your nation's resources, multilateralism again provides that nice cover.

Professorial Carelessness

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy a couple of days ago, Eugene Volokh wrote:

I Am Glad To Live in a Country in which the President does not say things like:

Let us stop drinking from the enchanted waters of Lethe, which strike with amnesia those who want to quench their thirst, and let us dare to taste those 'fresh waters that run from the Lake of Memory' -- as the words say on the golden bars of the disciples of Orpheus, that bard of metamorphosis and of ascending reincarnation.

This passage was attributed to an article in the London Telegraph, which identifies the new Prime Minister of France as a self-published poet, whose "excrable verse" has led President Chirac's wife to deem him "Nero", adding,

Recently, in an essay on France's need for national confidence (which, note, is not quite the same thing as Euro federalism), de Villepin wrote: "Let us stop drinking from the enchanted waters of Lethe, which strike with amnesia those who want to quench their thirst, and let us dare to taste those 'fresh waters that run from the Lake of Memory' - as the words say on the golden bars of the disciples of Orpheus, that bard of metamorphosis and of ascending reincarnation."

I would have thought that context would have been important to Professor Volokh - we're not talking about a statement made in public, but part of a self-published poetic essay by a hobbyist poet - made worse, no doubt, by translation from French into English. Is it the language and metaphor to which Volokh objects? Here's how a song the President has proudly and publicly performed (en masse, in mass) reads when roughly translated into French:

J'ai lu un mandat ardent d'evangile dans des rangées polies d'acier;
"comme affaire de ye avec mes contemners, ainsi avec vous ma grace s'occupera";
Laissez le héros, soutenu de la femme, écrasement le serpent avec son talon,
puisque Dieu marche dessus.

Battle hymn or no, out of context it looks pretty silly. So perhaps Prof. Volokh's comment,

In fact, maybe that should be our reaction any time President Bush is mocked for misspeaking: "Hey, at least it's not 'Let us stop drinking from the enchanted waters of Lethe . . . .'"

should be taken with a grain of salt. Or at least with an eye first to context, and second to audience - two factors I would expect a law professor to consider as a matter of instinct.

I recognize that it is fashionable in some circles to gratuitously bash the French - as was the apparent intent of the opinion article he quotes (which is even titled, in reference to a line from the Simpsons, "Surrender Flunkey") - but I am willing to assume that Prof. Volokh had something else in mind. Perhaps he did mean to simply express that, while we have a President who sometimes trips over his native tongue, we are lucky not to have one who is a mediocre hobby poet. There, of course, he makes the assumption that President Bush doesn't have a desk drawer stuffed full of poems he authors during his free moments. Perhaps he should reflect upon why he believes that assumption is a safe one to make.

Additionally,the position of Prime Minister in France does not parallel that of the President in the United States, and is more one of carrying out the directives of the President and managing France's civil service. Perhaps Prof. Volokh overlooked the portion of the article which describes how de Villepin took office after his predecessor was "sacked by President Chirac" - something that should have put him on notice of a difference. Do I care if somebody in the Bush Administration, such as Andrew Card, writes horrendous poetry in his spare time? Not in the least.

But perhaps the most peculiar aspect of Prof. Volokh's jibe is that it doesn't seem to have anything to do with qualification for office. I would prefer an articulate President. I would prefer to read good poetry. But if a Presidential candidate is reasonably articulate, at least to me, other issues become dominant - and whether he writes poetry (good or bad) in his spare time isn't among them.