Obama: Don't stay in Iraq over genocide

[ethics]

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

Any hope of me voting for this man just vanished. I don't think there's a GREATER cause in Foreign Policy than to stop genocide. But hey, that's just me. His reasoning is atrocious:

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.


"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.


So two or three or four wrongs make a right? We SHOULD be in Sudan but because Iraq is such a cluster:friggin: we aren't. We should be everywhere there's genocide. We go in, we stop it, we get out: What we did in Kosovo, Albania, and Bosnia.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070720/ap_on_el_pr/obama_ap_interview

[Sierra Mike]

Yeah, he's finally shown everyone what a dim bulb he is. Anyone who cares about genocide, that is. I would guess he would prefer we hadn't gone after the Nazis too.

SM

[Swamp Fox]

Even many liberals would say otherwise, that the US should go in to stop genocide.

[ethics]

What do you mean by "even"?!! It's a real Liberal's main (or one of the main) causes in foreign policy.

[joseftu]

It's a pretty crappy article, and reads a lot like there's some very selective quoting going on.

There is an important discussion to be had (beyond sound bites) about the effectiveness of military action in preventing genocide. It's not clear that it really works very often at all--or at least not at all clear that it works quickly enough or effectively enough.

It's pretty hard to make a case that the US military action in World War II prevented the genocide--maybe it prevented the completion of the genocide, but it took a long, long, time, and almost all the Jewish lives, and it's not at all clear that there couldn't have been better, more effective approaches, taken a lot sooner.

Beyond that, anyone who claims that the reason the US entered World War II was to prevent genocide is misreading history quite seriously. There was plenty of evidence of the genocide, plenty of time to try to stop it, long before the US entered the war--and the US showed zero inclination to do anything at all in that regard.

I don't know what Obama was really saying about Darfur (or Iraq), but I do know that from that silly little soundbite we can't tell at all whether he was making an intelligent policy argument, a confused slip of the tongue, or abandoning all principle and commitment to global justice.

[ethics]

There is an important discussion to be had (beyond sound bites) about the effectiveness of military action in preventing genocide. It's not clear that it really works very often at all--or at least not at all clear that it works quickly enough or effectively enough.

Hey Joe, it beats sitting on your ass and pontificating about it, doesn't it? What DOES stop Genocides?

[joseftu]

Maybe nothing. :(

So far, I haven't seen much of anything at all that really works. Have you? With historical examples?

At best, military action might delay or lessen it. At best.

That's better than nothing, of course.

EDIT--long-term, deep, cultural change will do it--history certainly shows that. But that's really long-term, like centuries, and it's certainly not something that one nation or power can do for another.

[ethics]

So far, I haven't seen much of anything at all that really works. Have you? With historical examples?

Already stated the most recent one in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Albania (three different instances).

[Sarge]

Maybe nothing. :(

So far, I haven't seen much of anything at all that really works. Have you? With historical examples?

At best, military action might delay or lessen it. At best.

That's better than nothing, of course.

EDIT--long-term, deep, cultural change will do it--history certainly shows that. But that's really long-term, like centuries, and it's certainly not something that one nation or power can do for another.

I'm going to quit fighting crime because I'm certainly not going to stop it!

[Kangaroo]

I think he is truly against military action to stop genocide. Here is why I think thusly. To do so would require a substantially larger conventional force along with the attendant requirement for larger logistical tails. A far lefty such as Hussein Obama is patently against giving the military ANY money. As a fringe lefty, he really thinks (one of the signs of their borderline insanity) that anyone can be reasoned with, including sociopathic and religious murderers.

It is a trait of many lefties (not exclusive to lefties, but this is the topic), this incredible narcissism and egocentrism that precludes them from ever achieving the slightest empathy for anyone else. This narcissism gives them the fantastic belief that all people think as they do, react to stimuli as they do, and can be taught to believe the same illogical, irrational world-view they hold. They are incapable of comprehending the possibility that others have wants and desires that are diametric to theirs'. This is why they cannot see evil for what it is and why they do not think violence solves anything. They are stunted in their social development to a five-year-old's ability; trusting to a point of suicidal stupidity (the five-year-old isn't stupid, it simply knows no better), and thoughtless of others' outlooks and emotional states.

[joseftu]

Already stated the most recent one in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Albania (three different instances).
Prevented? The genocide didn't happen in those places?

Not even close.

It could have been worse--the military action lessened it. And as I said, that's better than nothing. But it's far, far, from good enough.

[ethics]

Prevented? The genocide didn't happen in those places?


It happened before US/NATO intervention. It STOPPED after they stopped Serbian forces.

I am not sure what your problem is unless you are actually agreeing with Obama here.

Say it ain't so.

[joseftu]

It ain't so.

I definitely think there are times when intervention (military intervention) is a good idea. But I don't think it's always the best idea, and I don't think it's always sufficient.

And I think it's very important to remember that stopping genocide had nothing to do with the US goals or intentions in entering WWII. When it was just genocide, we plain didn't give a shit.

And in Iraq, it's particularly complicated, because the genocide that could occur (I can't say will occur--but it's a safe bet) when we leave is a different genocide than what was occurring before we came--and again, stopping genocide was not any part of our reason or intention in entering. We could have tried to stop Saddam's efforts toward Kurdish genocide long ago and we didn't.

So it's more than a little hypocritical to say that in any given case, the US has a "responsibility" to stop genocide, because in so many cases, we've ignored or allowed it--or worse.

But that's no excuse not to intervene to stop it in other cases. I should be quite clear about that.

But I said (and I'll say again) that it's not at all clear what Obama was saying. I might disagree with him--but I might not--because I don't know what I'm agreeing or disagreeing with. That article was crap--and the headline was summarized crap! ;)

[ethics]

I

And I think it's very important to remember that stopping genocide had nothing to do with the US goals or intentions in entering WWII. When it was just genocide, we plain didn't give a shit.

And in Iraq, it's particularly complicated, because the genocide that could occur (I can't say will occur--but it's a safe bet) when we leave is a different genocide than what was occurring before we came--and again, stopping genocide was not any part of our reason or intention in entering. We could have tried to stop Saddam's efforts toward Kurdish genocide long ago and we didn't.

So it's more than a little hypocritical to say that in any given case, the US has a "responsibility" to stop genocide, because in so many cases, we've ignored or allowed it--or worse.

I fully agree with you there. Which is why it's PRUDENT TO do something when there ARE signs of genocide or hints of it. And I am not saying Military intervention is the mother of all Genocide stoppers, and certainly not the best for prevention. There's plenty to do besides Military for Genocide prevention. But when it's underway, like it was in Bosnia (see Power (http://www.amazon.com/Problem-Hell-America-Age-Genocide/dp/0060541644/ref=sr_1_8/105-0858055-2811600?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184950768&sr=8-8))

But I said (and I'll say again) that it's not at all clear what Obama was saying. I might disagree with him--but I might not--because I don't know what I'm agreeing or disagreeing with. That article was crap--and the headline was summarized crap! ;)

Perhaps. Although I find it hard to see at what Obama said and what OTHER meanings there might be.

[joseftu]

Perhaps. Although I find it hard to see at what Obama said and what OTHER meanings there might be.
The actual quotes are so small, and so clumsy. He could have been trying to make a point like mine, or a different one, or something complex. He could have been just caught off guard and stumbling around (which would be not at all to his credit, of course)--he's an inexperienced candidate, maybe not so great at interview, however good he is at oratory.

The one comment, without context and with the sensationalist headline, is not enough for me to come to any complete or final judgment on him--a lot will depend on how he defends or expands it (and I'm fairly sure that he'll be challenged to do that).

I don't think he's going to be the candidate, anyway--VP to Clinton, maybe. But we all know about my track record with predictions!

[ravital]

It's pretty hard to make a case that the US military action in World War II prevented the genocide--maybe it prevented the completion of the genocide, but it took a long, long, time, and almost all the Jewish lives, and it's not at all clear that there couldn't have been better, more effective approaches, taken a lot sooner.


What's your definition of "genocide" then? Or your definition of "almost?" There were plenty more Jews left alive around the world at the end of the Holocaust than were killed in the Holocaust - does that mean the Holocaust took "almost all the Jewish lives?" Not trying to split hairs or anything, just trying to understand.

As to more effective approaches that might have been tried earlier - what are you suggesting? Negotiation of some sort? With Hitler? Who didn't consider Jews and Gypsies worthy of living? You question the effectiveness of military intervention in the prevention of genocides - fair enough, can you show an example of anything else doing the job?

Only military intervention could have done it, and only the U.S. getting into the war managed to do it. Could it have been done earlier? Yes, but FDR hands were tied by that precious Constitution (which I cherish no less than you), weren't they?

It's never going to be a clear-cut question and there's never going to be a clear-cut answer. But once your forces are already on the ground, in the theater where the genocide might happen, WITH all the good reasons that may exist to pull your forces out, if you're running for office, and you're talking about deliberately shrugging off a possible genocide, sorry, I think he's showing his true stripes.

[joseftu]

What's your definition of "genocide" then? Or your definition of "almost?" There were plenty more Jews left alive around the world at the end of the Holocaust than were killed in the Holocaust - does that mean the Holocaust took "almost all the Jewish lives?" Not trying to split hairs or anything, just trying to understand.
There were almost no Jews left alive in Europe at the end of the Holocaust. I don't think there's anything hard to understand about that. For all intents and purposes, that was a "successful" genocide. If the definition of genocide means "none whatsoever anywhere on the planet" then we've got nothing it worry about in Iraq or anywhere. If Hitler's genocide wasn't "successful," then I don't know what genocide would be!

As to more effective approaches that might have been tried earlier - what are you suggesting? Negotiation of some sort? With Hitler? Who didn't consider Jews and Gypsies worthy of living? You question the effectiveness of military intervention in the prevention of genocides - fair enough, can you show an example of anything else doing the job?
No, I never said negotiation--that clearly would not have worked with Hitler. In the World War II example, one counter-example is clear, though. The US (not just the US) turned away many many Jews who could have been saved, who were trying to escape. That was one obvious way in which more of the deaths could have been prevented.

And I'll point out again that the US did not enter World War II in order to prevent the genocide, and that the US did not prevent the genocide.

Only military intervention could have done it, and only the U.S. getting into the war managed to do it. Could it have been done earlier? Yes, but FDR hands were tied by that precious Constitution (which I cherish no less than you), weren't they?
Military intervention didn't do it. The genocide happened anyway. Could sooner military intervention have done it? Maybe. But it would have had to be much sooner, and much bigger--and as it was, we didn't exactly roll to victory in five minutes. It was a near thing, and might not have succeeded at all.

It's never going to be a clear-cut question and there's never going to be a clear-cut answer.
Absolutely true. And that's what I'm trying to say, and it may have been what Obama was trying to say.
But once your forces are already on the ground, in the theater where the genocide might happen, WITH all the good reasons that may exist to pull your forces out, if you're running for office, and you're talking about deliberately shrugging off a possible genocide, sorry, I think he's showing his true stripes.
If that's what he was saying, and even in the tiny quote we have, I don't think "deliberately shrugging off" is accurate at all. And I think that tiny quote is far too little to judge "true stripes" unless your mind is already made up.

I made a similar rapid judgment about the true stripes of Brownback et al. in the debate. Mainly because (as I'll admit) my mind about him was already pretty much made up about him. But I did pay attention to his later statements, and softened my judgment, and gave him credit for more reasonable amplification and explanation. I would think it's only fair for others to do the same for Obama.

[ravital]

Yes, the US refused entry to many Jewish refugees, and that certainly was a problem. There were however many places around the world those same Jews could have gone to, and I'm not sure how choosy one can afford to be when one is trying to escape genocide. And I would agree that if you confine your comments to genocide in Europe then yes, you're correct, but that would be a poor definition, as Jews never confined themselves to Europe.

Having gone far enough OT and to get back to Obama, and the fairness/unfairness of judgments, I believe many people have made up their minds about someone like Brownback, to cite the example you cited, on about as much or less than there was in this story about Obama.

[Please understand, I am no fan of Brownback. He merely caught my attention (not my eternal love or loyalty or support, and not my vote) when he stood up on the floor of the senate and held up an iPod, and urged his colleagues - most of them more or less in the pockets of the entertainment industry - to consider more carefully the implications of copyright restrictions. That's all.]

I can't imagine a context in which Obama's comments - ok, ANYONE'S comments as quoted above- could be understood as anything but "let's abandon the poor suckers to their fate." And only the fact that the story is somewhat lacking, accounts for my judgment of him being a bit softer than you think it is.

[joseftu]

[Please understand, I am no fan of Brownback. He merely caught my attention (not my eternal love or loyalty or support, and not my vote) when he stood up on the floor of the senate and held up an iPod, and urged his colleagues - most of them more or less in the pockets of the entertainment industry - to consider more carefully the implications of copyright restrictions. That's all.]
I shouldn't have brought him up--just an example--but I should say that I didn't know about the iPod event, and I do think it speaks well of him (and I thought you were an anti-iPod guy? ;). Joking. I get the point.) But there is plenty more (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/07/brownback_wrong_on_practically.php) which speaks plenty less of him. But enough about him--he's for a separate thread, or not--I don't think he really deserves it unless (highly unlikely) the Republicans actually nominate him.

As to the more likely (but still not probable) Democratic candiate:
I can't imagine a context in which Obama's comments - ok, ANYONE'S comments as quoted above- could be understood as anything but "let's abandon the poor suckers to their fate." And only the fact that the story is somewhat lacking, accounts for my judgment of him being a bit softer than you think it is.
The story is mighty lacking, and I'm glad you see that. I can certainly imagine lots of other contexts, lots of other ways to understand, for the small quotes we have. But maybe I'm just a more imaginative fellow! ;)

[Techie2000]

I'm seriously reconsidering my support, if only because it would be a dark chapter in the history of our country to say we went to Iraq and left them to genocide.

[ethics]

It's been a few days and I have not seen any other meaning from his quotes than what we have in the OT.

[John]

From his actual quotes in the article, I didn't get that he thinks genocide is not a good enough reason to intervene somewhere. I saw him repeating what he has said many times before: We are not in Iraq to prevent genocide, and that the risk of extended military battle in Iraq depletes our efforts in the war on terror.

[ethics]

Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide

Says something that's black and white, doesn't it? I could give two figs about his reasoning, I give a lot to what he says above.

[John]

Says something that's black and white, doesn't it? I could give two figs about his reasoning, I give a lot to what he says above.

That's only the interpretation of the writer of the article.

[ethics]

His quotes are in the OP and in the article, sir. They don't leave much for interpretation.

[John]

His quotes are in the OP and in the article, sir. They don't leave much for interpretation.

Not trying to argue, but that OP isn't a quote. Which of his quotes make you believe that he really thinks fighting against genocide is bad policy?

Like I said, I think he was just trying to make a point about our reasoning in Iraq. And like someone else said in this thread, the article is badly written, and the quotes are not very useful in supporting the headline and OP. Very misleading imo.

[ethics]

You know, I did some searches, and other than what's in the OP, there's nothing more concrete. So, I will have to concede based on lack of evidence. :)

[joseftu]

And like someone else said in this thread, the article is badly written, and the quotes are not very useful in supporting the headline and OP. Very misleading imo.
Ah, I can see already that you're going to be an excellent addition to the forum! Welcome!
(signed--someone else. ;))

[Stiofán]

Ah, I can see already that you're going to be an excellent addition to the forum! Welcome!
(signed--someone else. ;))

He's been here longer than you dufus! :lol:

[ethics]

LOL! Yah, John has been around here for a while.

[Stiofán]

I've been waiting my entire life to call a college professor dufus. :happy:

[joseftu]

Shoot, Stiofan, that's one of the friendliest things you've ever called me!

Sorry, John--didn't recognize you (only 24 posts!).

[John]

Ah, I can see already that you're going to be an excellent addition to the forum! Welcome!
(signed--someone else. ;))

I committed a register-and-run back in 2002, so no worries about not recognizing me. Thank you for the welcome, though. I'll be more active this time around :)

[Copzilla]

He's been here longer than you dufus! :lol:

Joe, this is where you're supposed to correct his punctuation.

[joseftu]

And his spelling, too. But it's a losing battle with that doofus. ;)

[Arc]

Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed since we took up security and occupation operations. The ones I speak of are mostly Sunni or Shiites who have were targeted and killed or tortured and killed first simply because they were either Sunnni or Shiites. The killings were done to the one by the other.

So how is that different from genocide?

[John]

Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed since we took up security and occupation operations. The ones I speak of are mostly Sunni or Shiites who have were targeted and killed or tortured and killed first simply because they were either Sunnni or Shiites. The killings were done to the one by the other.

So how is that different from genocide?

Who said it is different than genocide?