The reason it didn't occur to me to give Clark flack was because, even though I read the quote in the NYT piece, I somehow missed that particular detail. I just didn't zero in on it.

And, yeah, also because Clark didn't say he would withhold judgement on bin Laden's guilt.

"4) Whatever you think of Clark's answer, it's clear that he cares about the question, and thinks the answer has important foreign policy implications. Dean thought the question to be unimportant."

Yeah. It also fits with Clark's multilateral narrative.

On another note, the Nuremburg trials weren't exactly unilateral.

Dear gut, would you prefer to see OBL captured and tried in an international court even if it meant Saddam would go free, or OBL on the loose, Orange Alerts at New Year, new fears of plane hijackings, and Saddam captured, massive war debt, hundreds of US war dead, and the US Army unable to deal with new world threats?

thanks to Andrew I have met you. I've posted your site to my favorites.

6) Nobody really takes Clark seriously.

7) The article was too damn long.

Joke--I thought it was a great piece (despite being 9 pages online, sheesh).

My sense is that Clark's answer, unlike Dean's, sounded thoughtful and well-reasoned. Too bad it had little merit as an alternative to Bush's actual course of action. Any idea as to how LONG such a plan would have taken to execute? Me neither, but I suspect we'd still be awaiting permission to enter Taliban-controlled territory, as opposed to celebrating the ratification of a democratic constitution in a free Afghanistan.

Clark is singularly unimpressive; the field as a whole is looking more sodden by the day. Time for the three "serious" candidates (Lieberman, Gephardt and Kerry) to go into a backroom and draw straws.

"Any idea as to how LONG such a plan would have taken to execute?"

The answer: never! One excuse after another would have been employed to prevent action. Has everybody already forgotten the Balkans tragedy? The Old Europeans failed miserably to stop the killing. The United States had to save their rear ends.

The real scandal being downplayed is Howard Dean and Wesley Clark’s peculiar interpretation of multilateralism. They define it as the need for the United States to humiliate itself before the Old Europeans and others who wish to give us the middle finger. The French have particularly gone out of their way to stick it to America merely out of spite. Why is it a given in the liberal media that we are always at fault if another country complains about us? Why is the United States the bad guy in virtually every instance? Most of the Democrat President candidates and the “mainstream” media seem to believe that the Old Europeans represent the best of Western values. Why do they despise their own country to such an extent? More importantly, why do many American voters appear to agree with them?

Yes! David is exactly right! Why does Wesley Clark hate America?

What's the difference?? The difference is Clark was asked a totally different question. Dean was asked about what we should do with bin Laden if we catch him, in order to exact justice and/or vengeance on him as a person. Under those circumstances, of course the U.S. court is the right venue: you murder 3,000+ Americans, you're subject to our justice.

But Clark was asked something totally different and his after-the-fact proposal is totally unrelated: he's suggesting that soon after Sept. 11, a tribunal should have been set up to establish bin Laden's guilt in absentia, not to decide whether he gets the death penalty or not, but as a tactical tool to get more international help in the War on Terror. That seems to me a very creative idea, one that would not have sacrificed an ounce of our sovereignty and would have gained us a lot of power and legitimacy. Present the British dossier on bin Laden that they released a few weeks after Sept. 11 (the one that was not "sexed-up"), and get all the facts established without doubt in that forum. (This is also well before the bin Laden confession tapes would have appeared.) Then, when we needed to go to the Pakistanis or the Saudis or the Indonesians (not the Swiss, unfortunately) for help, we could say, "Look, you voted to declare this man and international war criminal. This isn't just the U.S.'s fight -- it's yours." That would probably have been a lot more effective than "your either with us or with the terrorists," which other countries found offensive, for good reason.

Of course, Clark's most fundamental critique, which is that we sacrificed the momentum and international support in the War on Terror by shifting the issue to the false claim of WMD in Iraq is far more important than this.

Wesley Clark the idea was always much more appealing than Wesley Clark the man. His only real policy was being the anti-war general, but on that fact he has gone back and forth too many times. Nonetheless he gets away with it because a)as you said he isnt the front-runner b)he is a retired General, and Americans have a tendency (rightly so) to give those who served the benefit of the doubt c)The same forces that want to see Dean stumble (the rest of the party) or at least come out a bloddied winner (the Republicans) have a big interest in seeing Clark remain unscathed.

In practice Kosovo was almost as unilateral as Iraq, and that is why Clark was fired. But if you want to talk about gaffes, saying that he would give Europe the first right to refusal of our forein policy was the biggest. Three thousand of our citizens die on our soil, and Wes Clark wants to give the French veto power over our response.

I am missing something here. I have not read the entire article but I do not get the sense that Mr Clark was advocating delaying going into Afghanistan or turning it over to the UN....but he was providing a less cowboy approach to foreign policy. His thoughts might not be what some others have done but they should not be just written off without some serious analysis from a long range perspective.

“But Clark was asked something totally different and his after-the-fact proposal is totally unrelated: he's suggesting that soon after Sept. 11, a tribunal should have been set up to establish bin Laden's guilt in absentia, not to decide whether he gets the death penalty or not, but as a tactical tool to get more international help in the War on Terror.”

You are conveniently overlooking the harsh fact that this would have severely restricted our actions. We would have then had to wait until a “consensus” formed. In other words, we would have waited until hell freezes over.

“Of course, Clark's most fundamental critique, which is that we sacrificed the momentum and international support in the War on Terror by shifting the issue to the false claim of WMD in Iraq is far more important than this.”

What world do you live in? France was only interested in giving us the middle finger. Why do you overlook the obvious duplicity and back stabbing nature of the French? There was no such thing going on as “momentum and international support in the War on Terror.” You are mistaking mere verbal attempts at outrage instead of a genuine desire to to enact violence upon our mutual enemies. Wesley Clark should be the last man on this planet willing to trust the Old Europeans. He saw first hand how cowardly and useless they were during the Balkans’ tragedy. Why didn’t Clark learn from his experiences?

Mr Thomson,

The real scandal is why anyone bloody cares about what exactly is going to happen to Saddam, as compared to what is going to happen to Iraq. What happens to UBL likewise in the event of a capture is trivial compared to the question of whether or not this is a healthy direction to be taking US foreign and military policy in. Yes, Clark and Dean have no real good ideas on how to run things. This is a strike against them. However GWB has really bad ideas about how to run things, and some of his advisers have even worse ones. This is a bigger strike against them. It's said that a relection campaign really comes down to a vote of confidence on the incumbent. Let's act like it instead of worry about bloody fricking France.

“Let's act like it instead of worry about bloody fricking France.”

Too many people are arguing that the United States isn’t sufficiently “multilateral.” However, this view presupposes that many of these countries like France are honest brokers. This is nonsensical. The French government and the other Old Europeans are merely jealous of our preeminent power. They will harm us merely out of spite. Thus, a rational person simply cannot ignore “bloody fricking France.”

"The answer: never! One excuse after another would have been employed to prevent action. Has everybody already forgotten the Balkans tragedy? The Old Europeans failed miserably to stop the killing. The United States had to save their rear ends."

This is completely wrong, David.

Hello Oldman,

You are far too sensible to believe that the American people, due to a quite reasonable sense that Bush is capable of going too far (perhaps already has--you say so, I say not, both positions are defensible), should therefore turn over the reigns of command to someone new who, we all agree, currently entertains dangerous fantasies about a multilateral paradise to which he can lead us.

Best case scenario: election year jockeying causes Bush to lighten up a bit on the lone cowpoke routine (already signs of this), thus obviating the need to change horses in midstream.

"This is completely wrong, David."

You’ve got to be kidding. The Old Europeans did nothing until the United States got tired of their procrastinating ways. Cowardly Dutch soldiers even gave over those they were supposedly protecting to the Serbian butchers. Old Europeans are lazy, gutless, and childishly vindictive. We have proven to be the elite culture. Thank God, many of our ancestors left that god forsaken area of the world.

I think we should also add to the list of reasons that Dean has made a number of faux pas, particularly regarding certain statements pertaining to Saddam. Clark, whether you agree with him or not, at least builds a case for his argument.

David Thomson completely overlooks the fact that many "Old Europe" countries were, and still are, involved in Afghanistan. It's so convinient to forget that, isn't it? It makes it so much easier to call them "lazy, gutless, and childishly vindictive".
There were many problems with the former Yugoslavia, and how Europe acted there, but most of the military involved, were (and still is), probably contrary to popular US belief, European. Just about all of the ground troops were as a matter of fact European. It's easy talking about cowards when you're bombing from a high height.

I won't ever say that Europe didn't act to late, but I will be damned if I am going to say that Europe didn't do anything in Balkan.
I simply know too many who have been on UN duty there for me to belive that.

“Clark, whether you agree with him or not, at least builds a case for his argument.”

No, he has not---unless you accept his premise concerning the French and the other Old Europeans. Clark naively claims that these folks truly wish to cooperate with the United States.

"I won't ever say that Europe didn't act to late, but I will be damned if I am going to say that Europe didn't do anything in Balkan."

No matter how you slice and dice the matter---the Old Europeans sat on their hands until the Clinton administartion finally lost its patience. America, once again, saved their rear ends.

I am glad to see some Old European troops in Afghanistan. Still, American and British ground forces did most of the nasty fighting.

I thought a lot of the fighting early on was done by the Northern Alliance and other groups of regional warlords opposed to the Taliban?

The US and UK mostly provided air support for them, with special forces troops on the ground acting as liasons and spotters for airstrikes. There were also operatives from various intelligence agencies on the ground persuading various warlords who were allied to the Taliban to change sides.

After Kabul fell there were a lot of American and British troops on the ground fighting the Taliban, but until then the actual numbers of foreign troops present was fairly small.

Now there are a lot of multinational troops present trying to hold the situation together. The government is trying to form a real army to fight against the various tribes and warlords who dont want to give up any power to the government in Kabul. But until then a lot of the Afghan troops are members of tribal milita groups, which dont like listening to a central authority.

Things seem to be making progress though, the new consitiution has been drawn up and things have been relatively quiet recently.

Kristjian,

I wouldn't get too upset about DT's intemperate language. Stop whispering, stop shouting--yeah, he must be a big Radiohead fan.

That said, your whole "it's easy to be brave" from jet flying thousands of feet in the air--that's a bunch of crap, and you should apologize to the US Air Force for the implication of cowardice. That's the kind of remark that makes it all too hard to mend bridges between Europeans and Americans. A simple "thank you" would suffice. And to start the healing, here's a thank you from an American to a European for pitching in in Afghanistan. There, that wasn't so hard.

Clark may be a thoughtful man, but he seems to think of multilateralism as an end to itself, as opposed to a means for this nation to accomplish its objectives. The question that he needs to answer is why the United States is better off if we achieve a nirvana of multinational government by committee??

The suggestion that Osama be tried internationally is downright dense. The lesson, I suppose, would be that if you execute a few folks in Washington DC, and are caught in the US, you get the death penalty, but if you lead the conspiracy that results in the murder 3,000 people in the US, you get a trial in the Hague, and 20 years in one of those nasty Dutch prisons.

Clark -- not surprisingly -- looks at everything through the prism of Kosovo. The problem is that the Kosovo campaign is quite different than either Afghanistan or Iraq. The US had no overriding interest in the Balkans -- so why would we act there, unless it was in concert with our European allies? In Afghanistan, there was a clear national interest -- the elimination of Osama's safe-haven. In Iraq -- well, it seemed like Saddam posed a danger to the US.

Oh well, at least Clark isn't the front-runner.

Kelli, I might have said things in a bit of haste, and I appology, and I am thankful for the US efforts during the Balkan conflict.
On the other hand, I've lost friends in the peace-keeping missions in that region, and thus finds it rather difficult to ignore the complete and utter lack of facts in DT's ramblings. And I won't appology for saying that.

Reading Mr. Thompson's comments would be almost funny if they weren't today's status quo.

The problem with his all too common line of reasoning is that it uses a very innacurate and static model of European politics-- they are simply anti-American. Therefore any attempt at diplomacy or compromise or even feigned compromise is out of the question.

In this neocon "lala-land" the insulting and inflammatory actions of the Bush administration have no real consequences except to clarify already existing antagonisms.

I don't think anyone realist has ever argued that France or Germany or "Old Europe" are easy players to deal with, but they are far from impossible obstructionists. Afghanistan proved that they were/are capable of cooperation with US goals. More recently James Baker has shown that a little "old fashioned" diplomacy goes a long way.

Kristjan,

Perfectly reasonable responses on all counts.

Rosco, sorry but you are wrong. DT is not speaking for anyone but himself.

why isn't Clark catching the same hell as Dean?

Because it's Clark. No one cares. His candidacy reached joke status a few weeks ago.

On a side note, I can't believe people are still going in for this "cowboy/untilateral" blah blah blah. Great Britain, Australia, Spain, Italy, Poland, Japan. Do they not have these on your maps?

“The problem with his all too common line of reasoning is that it uses a very innacurate and static model of European politics-- they are simply anti-American. Therefore any attempt at diplomacy or compromise or even feigned compromise is out of the question.”

First of all, you need to be more precise in your language. I am not talking about European nations per se, but the Old Europeans. And yes, they are simply “anti-American”---until the price is too heavy to pay. They are jealous and embittered by our successes. These folks will put the screws to us every chance they get. Now, how’s that for intemperate language? You should also read Jean-Francois Revel’s -Anti-Americanism.- He essentially agrees with me.

“I don't think anyone realist has ever argued that France or Germany or "Old Europe" are easy players to deal with, but they are far from impossible obstructionists. Afghanistan proved that they were/are capable of cooperation with US goals. More recently James Baker has shown that a little "old fashioned" diplomacy goes a long way.”

Your point is valid only when we slap them upside the head. Baker is only getting results because our military said that the Old Europeans would not be bidding on the Iraqi contracts. We must continue playing bad cop-good cop with the Old Europeans. It’s the only language these folks understand.

"The French will always do exactly the opposite on what the United States wants regardless of what happens, so we're never going to have a consistent policy," - Howard Dean, 1998

So, DT, you're seriously suggesting that everything France and Germany do is to spite America - what an incredible world view. I hope your general world view never get too widespread among US diplomats - it would make diplomatic transactions rather hard.

Dan - or other conservatives/libeterians, does DT in any way represent your worldview? I'm curious how many agree with him on this - it seems like Den Beste and Instapundit do to some agree at least.

As an European, though not from one of the mentioned countries, I have some feeling with the focus of both politicians and citizens here, and surprising as it might sound, quite a few decisions, even some which involves USA, is not based on how to screw America the most. As a matter of fact, I can't on the top of my head recall even one that seemed based on that general principle...

"do to some agree at least" = "do to some degree at least"

Kelli,

If you aren't married already then consider a proposal for a suit courting for your hand from me! You are a woman of emminent sense. You are correct in that GWB has been cooling on the whole lone ranger bit, and has been acting postively multilateral lately. This is one of the reasons why it's interesting to listen to DT rage on, he's obviously not gotten the memo (ala Powell's op-ed peice) that multilateralism like recruiting Korean, Thai, and Japanese partners (as I suggested earlier to the poo-pooing of certain commentators here) is not only possible it's positively fashionable.

However, I'm more cynical of GWB's conversion than you. I'm of the mind that if it was genuine, and he cooled off on the fiscal spending, then a second term might be not so bad afterall. However, Perle and Frum sent a pamphlet to the White House over X-mas suggesting military intervention for regime change in Syria and Iran, cold war with Arabia, and active mobilization for military invasion in Korea. To my mind, this proves to me that the neo-cons just don't get it.

With the prospect of Powell and Rice, the moderates in the Administration NSC, bowing out in a Bush II second term I think that GWB would revert to active warmongering. This is a prominent reason why I view GWB's conversion to man of multilateral diplomacy as a mere election year strategy to be abandoned later. My evidence for such a perfidy can be found in the records of GWB acting like a moderate before the election in 2000, and then blatantly discarding such a stance immediately after the election.

Thus Kelli, despite having won my admiration, I still must oppose the GWB re-election strongly.

“Dan - or other conservatives/libeterians, does DT in any way represent your worldview? I'm curious how many agree with him on this - it seems like Den Beste and Instapundit do....”

Hey, don’t forget Howard Dean! I thank Jeremy for reminding me that the leading Democrat nominee did indeed once say:

“"The French will always do exactly the opposite on what the United States wants regardless of what happens, so we're never going to have a consistent policy," - Howard Dean, 1998

Also, I doubt very much if the Old Europeans wish to explicitly acknowledge their jealousy of the United States. Most people innately feel ashamed of such sentiments. Thus, they must lie to themselves.

Mr. Thomson,

You must have failed to get the memo. Multilateral cooperation, including actively recruiting allies for deployment on the ground in Iraq from the very same countries that I've suggested in previous comments has already been going on and been touted by the GWB Admin. Powell wrote an op-ed peice outlining this peace policy in 2004 recently. Bush underlined by actually encouraging rapproachment and detente in a thaw in relations with Iran after the recent Bam earthquake. Your ridiculous attempt to reduce the concept of international cooperation to complete concession to two countries, and then to demonize said countries is following a script that the Admin itself has quietly scrapped in practice. While there may not be love for Germany and forgiveness for France in the Admin, in all other respects from China, Russia, Iran, etc. diplomacy is in and foreigner bashing is out. In recognition and encouragement of this, Russia and Japan have agreed to considerable write-downs in Iraqi debt. Your conjecture that they have done so because of a hardline stance is completely at odds with the Admin public line on the topic. Shaking his fist at other countries was completely for domestic political consumption for yammering bigots like yourself Dave. In private GWB is signaling to other countries that if they'll be nice then he'll be nice too, and that's what they're buying and that's what the Admin itself is selling. I don't believe that the conversion is truly genuine, but I do believe that it is deliberate, concerted, and at least for now the formal policy goal of the Admin. You should get with the program.

I think the fair assessment of the Bush administration's foreign policy is that it is boundedly multilateral; Bush works through multilateral institutions when, and so long as, there is a reasonable chance of achieving the bulk of U.S. goals through those mechanisms. IMHO Iraq is the exception to the rule--because the French (and, to a lesser extent, the Russians and Germans) would not countenance any multilateral solution that achieved the U.S. goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power, even over the medium-to-long term.

The bottom line is that if Bush were the unilateralist that (a) some neocons wish he were and (b) a lot of the left genuinely believes he is, we would certainly be in a full-fledged trade war at the moment. (Of course, serious candidates for the presidency are proposing unilateral actions that would instigate a trade war, but that's an aside...)

Oldman,
I'm touched, truly. Alas, it appears you'll have to settle for a bodacious undergrad...

As for your other worthy thoughts, I can offer only the old bromide, time will tell.

Today Pakistan and India prepared the way for an historic peace agreement, and guess who is going to be in for heaping helping of credit (all under the table, of course, no Rose Garden signing ceremonies)? Should this come to pass, I will tip my hat to the State Department team AND their boss.

Hey, y'know, I didn't vote for the guy either, but it's hard to argue with success.

Kristjian,

Have you noticed anyone leaping to David Thomson's defense? No? Makes you wonder, huh?

If you really want a roadmap to this blog (and Drezner does NOT deign to participate in the melees he sets off, wisely) read it for a week. Then you'll see. It's a bit like Monty Python's Flying Circus--odd mixture of highbrow and utterly lowbrow. Don't take it too seriously. On the other hand, I've spent time on a bunch of other political blogs and have to say, the comments here are among the most thoughtful and "intellectual" you will find on the internet.

"Have you noticed anyone leaping to David Thomson's defense? No? Makes you wonder, huh?"

Yeah, but I got Howard Dean on my side:

“"The French will always do exactly the opposite on what the United States wants regardless of what happens, so we're never going to have a consistent policy," - Howard Dean, 1998

That's got to count fror something. Me and Howie, what a team!

Kelli,

Alas it is as I feared. Some smart man has beaten me to the punch. Lucky him! :-) Fear not though, the oldman has found (sometimes to my dismay) that he is irrepressible and will spring back from this disappoinment like others. If you'd been available ... well but that's like saying if GWB really cared all that much.

GWB despite my acid commentary is admittedly not nearly the anti-Christ. To my mind he's just a politician with old-boys' club cronies trying to get elected and be the big man on campus. This is the problem though, that American power has grown so great that what should be an occasion for pride has become a reality where some oblivious if well-meaning officials can turn the world upside down because it's not all that hard given America's supremacy.

As for time telling, you are of course correct. Jackson Diehl however makes an interesting case where these sorts of consequences are in fact known to not be "unknowable" as Rummy might say. Cheers Kelli, my hopes for a bodacious undergrad remain unquenched and I note that I have a meeting set up with a politically minded one later this week, ostenisbly to get me involved in the primaries but I certainly intend to flirt quite charmingly and see how far I can get. ;-) My proposal to court you wasn't empty however Kelli, you seriously impress me even if we don't always agree.

If the War on Terror is in fact a war, OBL is a war criminal. The traditional remedy is for the nation whose belligerency rights are affected to hold a tribunal. The President already signed an order establishing one specifically for the purpose.

The newfangled trendy method of handling this sort of thing is by international tribunal. But we've not ratified the treaty, are opposed to its jurisdiction, and the only case remotely similar is the prosecution of Milosevic--which isn't going well. That's Clark's proposal, and at least it's defensible (though IMO wrongheaded).

Dean's apparent position is that it's a criminal case to be filed in Federal Court. That brings up questions about jurisdiction, allowable evidence, and what law and charge to apply. There's also some obvious concerns about security and empanelling a jury. ISTM a much less sensible position and worthy of a bit more attention, especially coming from the front-runner.

I want to know when any Democrat is going to get tough with Israel ( a major part of our problem in the Mideast) and tell them to get out of the West Bank and Gaza or no more money.

This is a moral as well as geopolitical issue. Israel is in the midst of major ethic cleansig capaign. The world knows it, except for most US citizens. Our press cannot bear to disparage israel. They are either major sypahizers or afraid of anti-Semetic charges.

Except for the Chinese in Tibet, no country today is comitting crimes likes these on such a major scale...in front of the whole world!

Or, just perhaps, people really don't give a shit where the guy gets tried, so long as somebody finally catches the SOB?

Yes, the WTC was the worst of Al Qaeda's atrocities. But it was hardly the only one. Just ask the Australians. Or the Turks. Or, well, you get the idea.

All this talk about fair trials for Osama B remind me of the old recipe for a ham sandwich:

We could have a ham sandwich, if we had some ham, if we had some bread.

Dear Blackie,

In answer to your question: Never so long as Republicans are able to use an illogically pro-Isreal stance in order to attract Jewish voters that would otherwise be strongly allied with Democrats. What is happening is wrong, and I agree that it is at least as wrong as Apartheid was which we didn't have problem confronting (eventually) in the 80's. More than wrong however, it's silly. This is not what is Isreal's best interests whether from maintaining territorial integrity, promoting security, or increased economic prosperity. However just like our politicians are incapable of solving our problems because of a lack of imagination and determination, so are theirs. In this case, I will add that the obstructionist policies of the Palestinians have precluded a cooperative peaceful negotiation of issues. In light of that, Isreal should impose a unilateral solution - but a unilateral solution that is both fair and beneficial to Isreal. Most Palestinians would accept it if Isreal imposed a final settlement unilaterally if it granted them some key and mostly face-saving concessions as long as it let them get out of the hell they are in now. Unilateralism isn't bad per se, but it introduces a greater requirement of imagination and initiative both of which are sadly lacking in our political leaders here and there.

Dean's getting the flak because the GOP can't criticize him for something really important, like the cost of his haircuts.

Chris Lawrence wrote:

I think the fair assessment of the Bush administration's foreign policy is that it is boundedly multilateral; Bush works through multilateral institutions when, and so long as, there is a reasonable chance of achieving the bulk of U.S. goals through those mechanisms. IMHO Iraq is the exception to the rule--because the French (and, to a lesser extent, the Russians and Germans) would not countenance any multilateral solution that achieved the U.S. goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power, even over the medium-to-long term.
The bottom line is that if Bush were the unilateralist that (a) some neocons wish he were and (b) a lot of the left genuinely believes he is, we would certainly be in a full-fledged trade war at the moment. (Of course, serious candidates for the presidency are proposing unilateral actions that would instigate a trade war, but that's an aside...)

This raises the question though, since Bush has been pretty much a multilateralist (I would say including the Iraqi phase considering that we tried both NATO and the UN while building a coalition), what more would Clark or Dean have done differently without giving the likes of France, Germany, Russia, etc. an effective veto over American foreign policy? It seems to me that the outcome would not have been differently in terms of which countries did or did not provide support (Germany after all vowed not to participate in Iraq regardless of what the UN said) and it isn’t as if other countries have suddenly decided that because they didn’t agree with us on the Iraqi phase that they are no longer going to cooperate on the rest of the war effort (at least not that I have seen).