Obama doesn't seem to worry much about the risks of exposing his words as empty in other contexts (remember his campaign pledge for a net spending cut?), so I'm not sure I believe he's much constrained in that dimension.

Goodness! It seems Obama didn't get caught in the box that several conservative critics feared (i.e. wanted). Now they'll have to fear (i.e. hope for) failure somewhere else.

"i.e. wanted"? o_O

I wonder if I am the only one to admire the way liberalism apparently causes its adherents to believe that they are all mutant telepaths? Or perhaps it is simply that they find debate easier when they are allowed to write the dialogue for both sides and are at a loss whenever anything deviates from their little script? ^o^

In any event, while I myself am glad that Mr. Obama did better than Jimmy Carter (An achievement no sane person would ever consider difficult!), I wonder also when liberals will realize the difference between a single engagement and an ongoing campaign? Or do they really think that "Declare victory and then go home!" is a magic way to solve all problems? :P

You wrote: "I wonder if I am the only one to admire the way liberalism apparently causes its adherents to believe that they are all mutant telepaths?"

It's a bit much to make a crack like that in a response as full of dubious assumptions as yours. It wasn't telepathy that told me many conservatives (Rush Limbaugh most notably among them but hardly alone) are hoping for Obama to fail.

In contrast, I've never before heard of this beast called "liberals," which doesn't know the difference between a single engagement and an ongoing campaign, or which thinks declaring victory and going home is a solution to all our problems. I do, however, prefer competence and the rule of law to incompetence and criminality--or to put it a little differently, like anyone who isn't either a fool or willfully depraved, I prefer Obama to the grinning Texas troll who preceded him.

"It wasn't telepathy that told me many conservatives (Rush Limbaugh most notably among them but hardly alone) are hoping for Obama to fail."

Tea leaves, then? Perhaps the advice of the multiple voices inside your own head? The contemplation of your own bellybutton lint? Or was it perhaps merely Freudian projection based on the behavior of those within your own political clique prior to the election of Mr. Obama? Given that you still haven't been able to bring yourself to mention the basis of your belief that this should be the case it is hardly as though we can expect anything better. :P

"In contrast, I've never before heard of this beast called "liberals,"..."

I admire your ability to write that as though you expect to be believed even though doing so does serve to invalidate anything else you may choose to write from this moment on. The fact that liberals are the type of people to flee from their own name rather than defend it is among the primary signs that they themselves are conscious of the fact that the things they *actually* stand for rather than claim to stand for are completely without worth. ^_^

"I do, however, prefer competence and the rule of law to incompetence and criminality--or to put it a little differently, like anyone who isn't either a fool or willfully depraved, I prefer Obama..."

So for competence and the rule of law you turn to *a Chicago Democrat*? O_O

Good luck with that! *snicker* ^~^

"...to the grinning Texas troll who preceded him."

Actually, Bill Clinton was from Georgia but if you truly never heard of liberals then I can't really blame you for not getting his state right either. But I will have to give you props for having accurately described Mr. Clinton as a grinning troll. Given that it is the inherited consequences of the choices he made in his own administration I cannot blame you for speaking of him with such contempt. :P

BTW, let us note that piracy on the Somalia coast remains a problem to this day. Until you show some awareness of this then you and your fellow liberals are indeed in the position of trying to act as though one engagement were indeed an entire campaign and are indeed in the position of trying to "declare victory and go home". Merely one of the many reasons that the Obama administration is already a failure without anyone needing to hope for such even if they were so inclined. Have a nice day! ^_^

I guess you have to be really, really, really clear for some people:

I know plenty of liberals; I have no personal knowledge whatsoever of the inane strawman to which you give the name "liberals." Got it now, Festus?

As for preferences, let's see: Chicago Democrat vs. torturer, instigator of an unjustifiable war, gutter of habeas corpus, serial warrantless eavesdropper, and so on. Your statement of preference makes my point for me: you're depraved, or a dolt, or both. In the 30s, you'd have been the very best of good Germans.

"I guess you have to be really, really, really clear for some people"

Good idea! One endorsed by such worthy people as Mark Twain and Larry Niven. If you learn to write in such a manner you will eventually be able to distinguish yourself from your fellow liberals. ^_~

For the rest? Nice attempt to bluster your way out of a losing debate but I still note with interest that nothing you have said serves to substantiate your claim that any Conservative particularly wanted Mr. Obama to lose out when dealing with pirates. Nor does anything in your post seem relevant to Somalia. So much for your first attempt! :P

Hmmm, let's see. Posner wrote:

"[Obama] also has little room to maneuver. Having just returned from a trip promoting internationalism, he has raised expectations that any anti-piracy endeavor will have an internationalist flavor. This will mean costly, time-consuming negotiations for the sake of largely symbolic contributions by other countries, if history is any guide. Having also raised expectations that his administration will act with the utmost respect for legality, Obama will either have to direct American forces to walk on eggshells or risk exposing his words as empty. If the pirates continue to take American hostages, he will have trouble maintaining these commitments while giving satisfaction to the inevitable nationalist backlash driven by the mounting sense of powerless and humiliation that we haven't seen since the Carter years."

After years of a unilateralism that was so unsuccessful, even the Bush administration finally backed away from it when dealing with North Korea, Posner suggests that Obama's emphasis on internationalism (really just normal American foreign policy pre-Bush II), together with a misplaced "utmost concern for legality," threatens us with Jimmy Carteresque humiliation.

My first observation: what exactly have the last 8 years brought us? The United States is weaker, and is perceived to be weaker, than it was in 2000. But somehow the present reality of humiliation doesn't exercise Posner as much as a so far purely notional humiliation that will beset us, thanks to Obama, any day now.

Further, and obviously, an effort to enlist possible allies doesn't restrict our room for maneuver; it increases that room. Nothing prevents us from acting unilaterally, too, if that seems warranted, as we just did in the pirate crisis.

And as for taking legality too seriously, if Obama were such a stickler for that, prosecutions for torture would already be getting underway.

Since the constricting box of failure into which Posner has shoved Obama has no obvious basis in fact, I conclude it's the product of wishful thinking, and obviously so.

"Since the constricting box of failure into which Posner has shoved Obama has no obvious basis in fact, I conclude it's the product of wishful thinking, and obviously so."

But you see, this is precisely where I think, for better or for worse, that you are really putting yourself in the position both of trying to be a telepath (Does the fact that somebody sees things differently from you necessarily mean that he is engaged in wishful thinking? The Larry Niven saying that pops to mind here is that "The one lesson of Science-Fiction is that there are minds that think as well as you but *differently*."), and of "declaring victory and going home". It really is possible to think somebody is screwing up badly without necessarily wanting him to fail.

Meanwhile, the constricting box doesn't go away merely because America won that particular engagement. The pirates have continued to attack American shipping afterwards so unless you argue that pretending the problem doesn't exist anymore is the same as solving it that part of the box remains. (Much as the problem of Algierian piracy remained even after Thomas Jefferson's own little rescue mission only to be settled later when America developed a real navy instead of Mr. Jefferson's play gunboats).

Setting aside your claim of President Bush being a unilateralist (Should we really ignore the existence of the Coalition partners merely because of the absence of France? Were we really weaker for the fact that France could no longer make money off of Saddam killing his own people?), the fact is that allies do cause constraints. This is true whether we talk of WWII (When FDR surrendered large populations to enslavement by Communism in order to make "Uncle Joe" Stalin happy), the Afganistan campaign (Where most of the European forces are pretty much Lois Lane because of the constraints their political masters put upon them) or WWI (Do you really think Bosnia would have mattered if alliances hadn't dragged the rest of Europe into it?). Alliances may or may not increase one's ability to accomplish a specific agreed upon task if all involved are of good will (As I hope we can agree Chirac was not!) but it distinctly does not increase one's ability to maneuver. Were it otherwise the proverbial horse designed by committee would indeed have been a horse rather than a camel. OTOH, if Mr. Obama continues to be wise and go it alone it is likely that sooner or later the Brussels crowd will find some other beloved vested interest of theirs overturned by his doing so and get snitty again. *I* consider that small loss - and I suspect Mr. Posner does too, but will that be necessarily true for those liberals who have been such loud internationalists over the past 8 years? Hopefully yes, but time alone will tell.

The endlessly maligned French are among the most consistent and ruthless harriers of Somalian pirates. It's not at all apparent to me how we'd be boxing ourselves in by coordinating our efforts with theirs.

For an interesting discussion of just this issue, see: http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/05/how-many-pirates-do-french-have-to-kill.html