Wednesday, August 06, 2008

The Commander in Chief Test

This point gets made a lot, but rarely by referencing the candidates' actual words. Here's what John McCain and Barack Obama had to say when the country was debating the biggest foreign policy decision we've made in the last several decades.

John McCain, from a New York Times op-ed entitled The Right War for the Right Reasons:
Many critics suggest that disarming Iraq through regime change would not result in an improved peace. There are risks in this endeavor, to be sure. But no one can plausibly argue that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein will not significantly improve the stability of the region and the security of American interests and values. Saddam Hussein is a risk-taking aggressor who has attacked four countries, used chemical weapons against his own people, professed a desire to harm the United States and its allies and, even faced with the prospect of his regime's imminent destruction, has still refused to abide by Security Council demands that he disarm.

Isn't it more likely that antipathy toward the United States in the Islamic world might diminish amid the demonstrations of jubilant Iraqis celebrating the end of a regime that has few equals in its ruthlessness?
Barack Obama, from a speech delivered at a Chicago anti-war rally:
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.… The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
And for the record, in the same speech, Obama suggested a few better uses of our time and resources, including, "finish[ing] the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda," securing loose nuclear weapons, and "fight[ing] to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon."
Digg!

6 Comments:

Blogger MLS said...

AL- there is no question that Obama got that one right. But so did Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan (and so did I, for that matter). And I am guessing that you would not support either of them for President over, say, John Kerry, John Edwards or Hillary Clinton, who came out the other way.

What I would like to know is how Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq fits in with his overall foreign policy approach. For example, does he believe that we were right to fight the first Gulf War against Iraq? Were we right to overthrow the regime in Haiti? Were we right to intervene militarily in Bosnia? Were we right to launch a war in Kosovo? Were we right to bomb Iraq on numerous occasions in the 1990s in order to punish Saddam for alleged violations of UN resolutions? Was the decision to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in response to the 1998 embassy bombings the appropriate response? Should there have been a military response to the bombing of the USS Cole?

Prospectively, how does Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war square with his promise to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons? How does it square with his apparent desire to intervene in Darfur? For that matter, while I understand (and agree with) the argument that the Afghanistan war was necessary and the Iraq war was not, it is not clear how that translates into conclusion that we have a vital interest in rebuilding Afghanistan but no vital interest in rebuilding Iraq.

I don’t expect you to be able to answer these questions, but perhaps you can agree that the American public needs some answers so that it can evaluate how Obama’s foreign policy differs from the consensus foreign policy that has been carried out since the end of the Cold War. Just saying that he is against dumb wars won’t cut it.

5:34 PM  
Blogger C2H50H said...

MLS loves him them rhetorical questions.

For myself, I really don't care much to get anybody's opinion on the Kosovo intervention. Water over the dam, and all that. I suspect the only interest people have in answers to these questions is as an exercise in "gotcha-ism."

It would appear that an aversion to stupidly starting wars of choice is sufficient to distinguish Obama from Bush -- or McCain.

Good enough for me.

1:56 PM  
Blogger MLS said...

c2h50h

Been following the news from Georgia? Unfortunately, Mr. Putin doesn't share your "water over the dam" attitude. He seems to think Kosovo stands as a precedent to give Russia a free hand in protecting breakaway regions of Georgia.

8:01 PM  
Blogger C2H50H said...

MLS,

What gave Russia a free hand is geographic proximity and a blatant provocation by Georgia, egged on by Bush.

Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but Russia shares a border with Georgia. If you imagine that world opinion would have discouraged them from their actions, you are delusional.

In any case, Kosovo was only one of the many things that are behind this. There's also the expansion of NATO; placing missile defense sites in Poland; and the impending change of leadership in the USA.

Take your pick. And by the way, do pay a little attention to the insane war-mongering that McCain is doing over the conflict and ponder whether you want this brain-damaged ex-flyboy in charge of anything but a soapbox.

9:21 AM  
Blogger MLS said...

c2h50h

That’s a neat trick. In response to my post which posed a number of questions (IMHO important questions) that should be asked about Obama’s foreign policy views, you suggested that these questions were all “rhetorical” and therefore presumably of no interest to anyone actually concerned about our foreign policy or the well-being of our nation.

You specifically indicated your disinterest in “anybody's opinion on the Kosovo intervention. Water over the dam, and all that. I suspect the only interest people have in answers to these questions is as an exercise in ‘gotcha-ism.’”

Well, I suspect that even at the time you wrote this you knew it was a silly statement to make. However, you are so focused on “winning” every thread that you have to say something regardless of whether it makes sense or not. (BTW, we aren’t on “Crossfire.” Nobody cares who wins our little debates.)

Now it transpires that the contemporary significance of the Kosovo intervention is dramatically and bloodily illustrated by the conflict in Georgia. Do you admit that your previous statement was, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid? Of course not. Instead, you observe that “Kosovo was only one of the many things that are behind this.”

Well, duh. How does that possibly bear on our previous exchange? Similarly, your undoubted ability to insult Bush, McCain and every other Republican born since Abraham Lincoln does not have any relevance either.

I have little doubt that you will get the last word in here. That’s fine. All I ask is that you make an effort not to let your partisanship infect every aspect of your reasoning process. Just give it a try.

10:52 AM  
Blogger C2H50H said...

MLS,

The use of Kosovo to justify what the Russians are doing in Georgia is a phenomenon of the American right wing. The Russians aren't making a big deal of it.

I'm under no delusion that anybody "wins" here. I just enjoy pointing out fallacious reasoning.

It's especially amusing to see you complaining about somebody else's reasoning. You are so obviously incapable of connecting any of the cars in a train of thought.

6:12 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home