Thoughts, comments, musings on life, politics, current events and the media.



Blogroll Me!


Comments by YACCS

 

Say wha?

This morning, Glenn Reynolds referred us to this article, in which Le Monde's London correspondent attacks the British for siding with the United States. Glenn noted the tone of the article, in which the reporter wrote as if he were speaking for the French government, but the part which struck me was this:

Let's be clear: Mr Chirac does not endorse Baghdad, and he finds Saddam's regime as despicable as do Bush and Blair. But he fears the American hawks will ignite Muslim fundamentalism worldwide. The fear of domestic conflagration and terrorism are also ever-present: there are 6 million French Muslims to take into account.

Mr Chirac is viscerally opposed to the idea of a clash of civilisations. Bush's core support, on the other hand, comes from evangelical Protestantism, with its two faces of intolerance and lack of cultural understanding.

Is it my imagination, or is the author of this piece suggesting that France can't join in liberating Iraq because Muslim residents of France are disloyal? Because it seems to me that this is either a huge slander against ten percent of the French population, or a major indictment of French immigration policy. It wouldn't be shocking if French Muslims had a different view of Middle East policy than other French citizens -- but the article doesn't make the argument that French Muslims would disagree with French cooperation with the U.S. Rather, the article suggests that they're potential terrorists.

And then he has the nerve to pretend that he disagrees with the idea of a clash of civilizations? He's not disagreeing with it; he's endorsing it -- in extreme, almost racial, form. "Bush's core support" views Middle Eastern culture as a threat, but this reporter (and impliedly Chirac himself) views Muslims qua Muslims as a threat. And that's supposed to demonstrate tolerance and cultural understanding on his part?

Great minds think alike: I note that Eugene Volokh had the same reaction I did.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/14/2003 09:13:00 PM |

 

The last best hope

Fear not, Saddam. The warmongering United States may be prepared to attack you even in the face of a veto by your staunch French allies in the Security Council, but Robert Fisk has found a way out, a way to preserve your regime in the face of American imperialism. He has discovered a force even more powerful than the United Nations Security Council: the General Assembly.

So here's a little idea that might just make the American administration even angrier and even more aware of its obligations to the rest of the world. It's a forgotten UN General Assembly resolution that could stop an invasion of Iraq, a relic of the Cold War. It was, ironically, pushed through by the US to prevent a Soviet veto at the time of the Korean conflict, and actually used at the time of Suez.

...

The White House – and readers of The Independent, and perhaps a few UN officials – can look up the 377 resolution on ares377e.pdf. If Mr Bush takes a look, he probably wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry. But today the General Assembly – dead dog as we have all come to regard it – might just be the place for the world to cry: Stop. Enough.

Sorry, I can't post anymore; I'm laughing too hard to type. All I can say is: thank god for Robert Fisk.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/14/2003 04:29:00 AM |

 

I beg to differ

The problem with the argument that Saddam Hussein can be contained that Partha mentions below is that it depends not only on Hussein being deterrable, but upon him actually being deterred. Mearsheimer and Walt illustrate the point when they write:

But what about Saddam’s failure to leave Kuwait once the United States demanded a return to the status quo ante? Wouldn’t a prudent leader have abandoned Kuwait before getting clobbered? With hindsight, the answer seems obvious, but Saddam had good reasons to believe hanging tough might work. It was not initially apparent that the United States would actually fight, and most Western military experts predicted the Iraqi army would mount a formidable defense. These forecasts seem foolish today, but many people believed them before the war began.

In other words, as they later admit, he "miscalculated." Their argument is that Hussein won't act to harm the United States because he's rational rather than suicidal -- but what good is that, if he miscalculates? And his history suggests that either he's irrational or he miscalculates frequently.

Indeed, let's look at the current situation: if Saddam Hussein so deterrable, then why is he not eagerly cooperating with UNMOVIC? If he's so deterrable, if he's so rational that he wouldn't use WMD, then why not give them up? They're not serving to deter the United States; they're serving to provoke the United States. If he wouldn't use them, what good are they to him? Why not surrender them and all documents, allow Hans Blix to say, "Iraq has fully cooperated and is hiding nothing," and hence preserve his regime? Either he's miscalculating, or being irrational.

A possible answer is that he's retaining these weapons because he thinks that Bush would attack even if he fully renounced them, and so he'd rather keep them to use when the U.S. attacks. But that's not particularly rational; even if he used them in defense, that wouldn't allow him to defeat American forces. So that's not a strong argument for the containable position.

Another flaw in the argument is that it depends on (their version of) history repeating itself. But past performance, as the disclaimer goes, is no guarantee of future performance. They argue that history shows that Saddam Hussein is interested in self-preservation above all else, and so, in their words, "Saddam thus has no incentive to use chemical or nuclear weapons against the United States and its allies—unless his survival is threatened." But he's getting up in years now -- 66 -- and there are persistent if unsubstantiated rumors of health problems like cancer. What if he knows his survival is threatened, not by the United States, but by old age? (Of course, we shouldn't take that argument too far; after all, it could apply to any country. But Saddam Hussein has demonstrated himself to be particularly unconcerned with human life, even by dictatorial standards. The containment argument isn't that Saddam Hussein is decent, but that he's deterrable. When he has nothing to lose, that argument fails.)

There are many practical problems with containment, as well, but for now I just wanted to address the issue of it being effective.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/13/2003 09:32:00 PM |

 

Missing the point

Here's news that will come as a shock to many Amish people: France Opposes New British Proposal on Iraq. This is of course the compromise proposal being pushed by the British, in which Iraq would have to meet certain conditions by a certain deadline. But it's still not good enough for the cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

France said it does not support the idea of an ultimatum. It wants to "set out a framework for inspections with a work program and a precise calendar," de Villepin said.

What the hell are they talking about? They already issued the ultimatum. That's what 1441 was. Why did those bastards vote for the thing, anyway? Was it really just to stall, to give Saddam Hussein more time in power? More time to shred documents showing the French collaboration with the Iraqi government?

Perhaps the problem is that the French believed George H. W. Bush a decade ago when he compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler. ("Hitler? Mon dieu! We must hand over Paris right away!") Or perhaps the problem is that the French, like the New York Times, don't understand the agenda here. The Times calls for another attempt at negotiating a compromise solution, saying:

The ultimate goal should not be a symbolic Security Council majority of nine, but passage of a resolution without a disabling veto. That might still be possible. Washington will find out only if it makes the new British proposal the basis for serious negotiations.

No, you French-wannabes; the ultimate goal is total disarmament (which will almost certainly require regime change) of Iraq. A resolution is just a means to that end. Does the Times really not understand that there's no value to yet another ambiguous Security Council resolution which will just be ignored? Do they not realize that the French will never agree to any resolution that has any teeth in it? Or do they just not care?
posted by David Nieporent at 3/13/2003 06:44:00 AM |

 

Your answer is wrong -- whatever it is

Nobody expects the New York Times to like anything George Bush does. And we've come to expect confused arguments when it comes to Iraq. But what sort of cognitive dissonance does it take for them to argue that unknown statements are wrong?

Mr. Estrada's nomination, which was turned back last week by a Democratic filibuster, has stalled because he refuses to give senators the information they need to evaluate his judicial philosophy. Until he is more forthcoming, the Senate should continue to block his confirmation.

Mr. Estrada has been called the "stealth candidate" because he is said by lawyers who know him to have extremely conservative views, but he has virtually no paper trail. At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Estrada refused to answer senators' legitimate questions about his judicial philosophy. And the White House has rejected senators' requests for memorandums he wrote as a government lawyer that could shed light on his beliefs.

Rather than give senators the information they need, his supporters have repeatedly attempted to change the subject.

So, in other words, the Times is claiming that they don't have enough information to evaluate Miguel Estrada. Fair enough. Somehow, though, they learned within the space of two paragraphs:

Rather than demonizing Democratic senators, the White House should look for common ground. In the case of Mr. Estrada, it should respect the Senate's role in the process by making his full record available. And going forward, it should choose judicial nominees from the ideological mainstream, who do not prompt the sort of bitter partisan divisions that Mr. Estrada has.

In cliche-filled mystery novels, we often are shown a scene in which the killer says, "I didn't shoot him," and the brilliant detective says, "Then how did you know he was shot? I never mentioned that." How exactly does the Times know that Estrada isn't "from the ideological mainstream" if they claim to know nothing about him?

It's not the opposition to Estrada that bothers me, or even the filibuster. It's the dishonesty about the reason for the filibuster. Democrats (and the Times) think Estrada is conservative, and they want Bush to appoint liberal judges. Why can't they just come out and say that, instead of cloaking their opposition in claims that they need more information? Does anybody believe that any "information" provided by the Bush administration would change anybody's mind right now?

Note, by the way, that to the Times, these "bitter partisan divisions" are not the fault of Democrats. Rather, George Bush is to blame. The Times editors never seem to grasp that in a partisan dispute, it's not automatically the fault of the Republicans.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/13/2003 06:12:00 AM |

 

Innumeracy 101, or perhaps just bad writing

Preferences given to legacies are becoming part of the affirmative action debate, but unfortunately, the debate is being distorted by bad reporting:

While minorities are admitted to Georgetown at a higher rate than the total applicant pool -- about 28 percent compared with 21 percent of all applicants -- the proportion of legacy applicants admitted is higher still, at 40 to 42 percent, Deacon said.

The numbers are similar or somewhat higher at many elite schools. Legacy students are about twice as likely to get into the University of Virginia, more than three times as likely to get into Harvard.

The problem is that none of these statistics illustrate what the reporter is using them for: the purported advantage that legacies enjoy.

Even in the absence of preferences, we'd expect to see alumni kids getting admitted at a higher rate than the pool as a whole. Alumni kids are more likely to know what it takes to get into that particular school. They're more likely to have educated parents, which means that they're more likely to have successful parents. And parental educational and financial success is an important predictor of student educational and financial success. It's impossible to separate these other factors from legacy status, given the limited statistics cited in the article.

I'm sure legacies do have an advantage, all else being equal. But if reporters aren't going to provide us with meaningful information about the advantage, then what's the point of writing the story? Of course, it's entirely possible that the reporter doesn't realize that the information provided is inadequate, which would suggest that she should spend more time in math class and less in the admissions office. Either way, it was a pretty useless article.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/12/2003 07:24:00 AM |

 

How about if we just flip a coin?

The Washington Post details the debate at the UN over what to do next. There are about six different proposed resolutions floating around (not counting the French "We surrender" plan). The problem is, it seems clear that all the non-American proposals are designed primarily to stall. (Well, that's one problem; the other problem is that the French won't accept any proposal at all. They have all but declared themselves to be on Saddam Hussein's side in the war on terror.)

Six months ago, I argued against the idea of working through the UN, getting another resolution, and restarting the inspections process. My argument then was that there was no reason to wait six months to appease the anti-war crowd, because in six months the situation wouldn't be any different, and anti-war people would be no more likely to support the U.S. Not to toot my own horn, but I was obviously right.

And that's the same situation we face now. The U.S. is willing to have another resolution as long as it (a) sets a firm, short-term deadline, (b) lists specific requirements, and (c) authorizes force automatically if the requirements aren't met by the deadline. Canada, which isn't on the Security Council at all, is willing to accept something similar, as long as the deadline is at least a month in the future. The six undecided countries on the Council appear willing to set specific benchmarks, but want a deadline weeks away and don't want an automatic authorization for war. In short, these countries want to stall, exactly as we've been doing for months now. And the French won't even go that far; they won't accept any deadlines at all.

So what's the point? What would be different in a month than now? If people don't think Iraq's failure to live up to its obligations for 12 years justifies a military response, then why would Iraq's failure for 12 years and one month be any different? Of course, it wouldn't, and in a month we'd hear the same excuses over again. Apparently the only thing that might change the minds of the French and/or undecideds is a mushroom cloud appearing over New York -- and maybe not even then. Since that's obviously unacceptable to everyone who isn't French, we might as well stop trying to woo them and go ahead now.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/12/2003 07:05:00 AM |

 

RSVP

From Sunday's wedding announcements in the New York Times:

Krystyna Anna Stachowiak, a former marketing and public relations consultant, and Howell Raines, executive editor of The New York Times, were married yesterday at Trinity Episcopal Church in Mount Pocono, Pa. Canon Virginia Rex Day performed the ceremony.

Do you think Andrew Sullivan was invited?
posted by David Nieporent at 3/11/2003 02:38:00 AM |

 

Looking a gift horse in the mouth?

Given the recent capture of Al Qaeda operational leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and the possible capture of two of Osama Bin Laden's sons, and given the rumors that we're "closing in on" Osama Bin Laden, it raises a question: do we want to capture Osama Bin Laden?

Let me first say that I think it likely he's dead. (If he were alive, I would think he would want to brag about it; what better way to thumb his nose at the United States than to turn up safe and sound? For many years he has sent videotapes to Al Jazeera; all of the sudden, he has stopped? A few tapes have arrived, but they've been only hard-to-authenticate audiotapes -- hardly the same thing.) But assume for the sake of argument that he's alive, and that we capture him. What do we do with him?

1. We could treat him as a prisoner of war. That is, he gets locked up until hostilities are over, and then he gets released. That's essentially what's happening with the Guantanamo Bay prisoners, though for technical reasons -- primarily that we want to interrogate them -- they're not officially called POWs. That's not going to happen, for obvious reasons. Bush vowed to bring him to justice, and I think all Americans expect that.
   
   
2. We could skip the trial, and go right to the execution. It's no more than he deserves, but I can't see that happening. Osama Bin Laden would be the most notorious prisoner on the planet, perhaps in all of human history. Yes, even more than O.J. Simpson. The whole world will be watching; the U.S. government will want to do everything by the book, so that it looks like justice rather than winner's justice.
   
   
3. He could be tried in a military tribunal. It's not quite as bad as executing him without trial, but it's not a good option, either. There's a perception, probably justified, that military tribunals have standards that are more lax than those of "real" trials. The government would be seen as stacking the deck against Bin Laden from the start, and it wouldn't help our image. Assuming our image is something to worry about, of course.
   
   
4. We could try him in a normal American Article III court. Give him a fair trial and then hang him. Show the whole world that we can even respect the rights of a mass murderer like Bin Laden. There are two problems: (1) even given how little Americans read the newspaper, and even given how short American attention spans are, it might be tough to find a jury who hasn't already prejudged Bin Laden's guilt, and (2) if we try Osama Bin Laden in a standard civilian court, how can we possibly justify trying any lesser terrorist figure in a military tribunal? It would knock the legs out of the whole system set up to handle the terrorist situation.

It seems to me that there's no really good answer here. Having him die while resisting arrest would be far more convenient, but even that has its flaws. Aside from likely turning Bin Laden into a martyr, it would also deprive intelligence agencies of their chance to interrogate him. I've left out trickier possibilities, such as claiming he was killed resisting arrest, and then spiriting him away to a secret CIA base where he will be questioned for the rest of his life. I don't know the right answer; I do predict that whatever course of action is chosen will be criticized by Democrats.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/10/2003 06:46:00 AM |

 

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank notes some striking similarities:

The president promised that American troops would not remain in the Middle East "for one day longer than is necessary" and he said the coming war with Iraq provides opportunities "to settle the conflicts that divide the Arabs from Israel."

Sound like President Bush's speech Feb 26 to the American Enterprise Institute? Well, yes. But the quotes are actually from President George H.W. Bush's address to the United Nations on Oct. 1, 1990.

The current president, as he readies the nation for war in Iraq, has been recycling some of the arguments and phrases his father used more than 12 years ago. In particular, the younger Bush's speech Feb. 26 outlining the future of Iraq had striking similarities to the elder Bush's address to the 45th General Assembly of the United Nations.

Back in 1990, the 41st president said: "We seek no advantage for ourselves, nor do we seek to maintain our military forces in Saudi Arabia for one day longer than is necessary." Bush the 43rd said two weeks ago: "We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more."

Plus, they both have a tendency to mangle their words from time to time. But let's just hope that Bush 41's rhetoric is all that's being imitated by Bush 43. So far, so good, certainly, in that regard. In 1990, Margaret Thatcher famously had to warn the elder Bush not to go wobbly; does anybody think that our current president would ever need the same cautionary lecture? George W might make the wrong decisions, but if so, it would be from miscalculation, not a lack of willingness to stand up for his beliefs. One thing our current president doesn't suffer from, unlike his father, is a dearth of "the vision thing." And that will hopefully make all the difference.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/09/2003 05:58:00 AM |