Shek

Sure, Barack, you didnt vote for war in Iraq. That was the easy part | St Opinion | Opinion | Telegraph

Sure, Barack, you didn’t vote for war in Iraq. That was the easy part
By Niall Ferguson, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 18/02/2007

If politics were a fairy tale, Barack Obama would surely be the next president of the United States. With his melting pot roots (father Kenyan, mother Kansan, born in Hawaii) and his molten hot rhetoric, he can seem like a cross between Martin Luther King and John F Kennedy -a living opportunity for Democrats to relive the Sixties, but without the bitter arguments that split the party over civil rights.

An Obama victory in '08 would also exorcise the memory of that other lingering 1960s nightmare: Vietnam. It was, after all, Kennedy who committed the United States to military intervention in what was effectively Vietnam's civil war. But Obama's line is diametrically opposite. If he's said it once, he's said it a hundred times: he did not vote for the Iraq war.

Last month, he went a step further, introducing a bill ("The Iraq War De-escalation Act") that would mandate "a phased redeployment of US forces with the goal of removing all US combat forces from Iraq by March 31, 2008".

Were this bill to become law (which is, of course, unlikely), the last American soldier would be out of Iraq with seven months of presidential campaigning still to go.

Obama's anti-war stance is widely seen as his trump card as he goes head to head with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Despite her best efforts, Sen Clinton finds herself in John Kerry territory, having originally voted for the war, but now opposing it. Should Obama win this contest, his supporters reason, he would also be well placed to beat any of the Republican front-runners. John McCain is seen as particularly vulnerable on Iraq. Not only did he support the war; he has also backed President Bush's latest attempt to salvage the situation with a "surge" of extra troops.

Yet conventional wisdom on presidential races at this early stage nearly always turns out to be wrong. Obama's stance on Iraq may yet prove to be his biggest vulnerability -just as McCain's consistency, based on years of hard-won military and political experience, might just be his biggest strength.

Take a look at Obama's arguments for a speedy US withdrawal. Speaking on the Senate floor on January 30, he asserted that "redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve ... political settlement between its warring factions".

The key is "to give Iraqis their country back", since "no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war". He repeated these words when he announced that he was running for the presidency last weekend.

But Obama's claim that an American withdrawal would somehow "pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace" is a fraud.

On the contrary, an American withdrawal is much more likely to lead to an escalation of the conflict that is tearing Iraq apart. In a devastating paper for the Brookings Institution, Daniel L Byman and Kenneth M Pollack have pointed out that, given the vast potential for violence that exists in the Middle East, we ain't seen nothin' yet.

"The only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into a Lebanon- or Bosnia-like maelstrom," they argue, "is 135,000 American troops." I would go further. Iraq has already matched the level of violence witnessed in the Lebanese and Bosnian civil wars. And it could get much, much worse. If the US pulls out, as Obama recommends, Byman and Pollack predict "a humanitarian nightmare" in which we should expect "hundreds of thousands (conceivably even millions) of people to die". There could also be huge economic fallout, with oil prices surging above $100 a barrel as the war spilled into neighbouring countries.

A key lesson of recent civil wars is that they seldom stay localised: think of the conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians, Serbs, Croats and Muslims in Bosnia, Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. In each case neighbours became involved, often as a result of the huge refugee flows caused by the initial conflict. If Iraq follows the same pattern, Byman and Pollack suggest, we could expect to see 13 million internally displaced people and 6 million cross-border refugees. Terrorist organisations would flourish. A major regional war could break out between Iran and the predominantly Sunni powers to the west of Iraq.

Obama's call for rapid withdrawal from Iraq would make some sense if he was an old-fashioned isolationist. But he's not. His best-selling memoir-***-manifesto, The Audacity of Hope, dismisses isolationism as unworkable: out of both self-interest and altruism, the United States has no alternative but to "help make the world more secure". Looking back on what happened in Rwanda, he reflects that "an international show of force ... might have stopped the slaughter".

"Disorder breeds disorder," he writes. "And if moral claims are insufficient for us to act ... there are certainly instrumental reasons why the United States ... should care about failed states ... that are numbed by civil war and atrocity. It was in such a state of lawlessness that the Taliban took hold of Afghanistan. It was in Sudan, site of today's slow-rolling genocide, that bin Laden set up camp for several years."

Obama has also accused the Bush administration of doing too little to stop the murderous policies of the Sudanese government towards the people of Darfur. In an article in December 2005, he argued that "advisers from Western nations" should be embedded within the African Union's mission in Darfur, and that the United States should "work with other nations to provide military assets to African Union forces, such as attack helicopters and armoured personnel carriers".

Indeed, he went so far as to urge the deployment of "a UN or Nato-led force". "If the United States does not change its approach to Darfur," he declared, "an already grim situation is likely to spiral out of control."

Wait a second. Here are two grim situations, each likely to spiral out of control. But in one (Sudan) Obama recommends military intervention, while in the other (Iraq) he recommends military withdrawal. Am I missing something?

What is particularly objectionable is that Obama appears to have forgotten Colin Powell's Pottery Barn rule, as famously enunciated on the eve of the invasion of Iraq: "You break it, you own it".

Far more than in Sudan, the United States has a burning moral responsibility to prevent Iraq from plunging into a bloodbath. When Obama refers to "someone else's civil war", you have to ask how he thinks this civil war got started.

Sure, Barack, you didn’t vote for the war. Somehow you intuited that the intelligence on Saddam's WMD was bogus - no mean feat for a rookie senator. But that doesn't absolve you from dealing with the mess Bush and Co have made.

In the acknowledgements section of The Audacity of Hope, Obama gives profuse thanks to his adviser (and my Harvard colleague) Samantha Power, whose Pulitzer Prize-winning A Problem from Hell was an indictment of Western impotence in the face of successive genocides from Pol Pot's Cambodia to Milosevic's Yugoslavia.

I assume Obama has read Power's book. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have grasped its implications.

Back to the political fairytale. It is January 20, 2009, and Barack Obama is being sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. Just as he demanded, the last American soldier was airlifted out of Baghdad's green zone the previous March. Since then, Iraq and its neighbours have been consumed by a tide of sectarian violence unlike anything seen since Rwanda in 1994.

The death toll is estimated to be as high as half a million, and rising. The United Nations has officially condemned the Shiite government's murderous expulsion of the Sunnis of south-eastern Iraq as genocide.

In Washington, the question on everyone's lips is: Will President Obama call for US military intervention to halt the killing?

Now, that would take real audacity.

• Niall Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University

Niall Ferguson

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Ray

As a non American, I would say he is very interesting and would have sure liked to see he becomes a President except for one thing - wanting to withdraw from Iraq.

That is irresponsible no matter how you look at it.

Irresponsible from the US standpoint - being a quitter as also adding to the humiliation of another Vietnam. And worse is that there is no media to blame this time, unlike Vietnam! The US cannot afford to have this stigma since it would reduce her credibility and she will not have the moral authority (which in any case has diminished) to be the arbiter in the hotspots of the world. The would be taken as an interloper inspite of all the good intentions!

Irresponsible from the world standpoint - because it would leave the US starting a war unilaterally and then leaving a total mess behind. Another hotbed of terrorist would have germinated as it is in Pakistan. Pakistan blames the US squarely for the terrorists since they claim that these are the very people encouraged by the US to rise against the Soviet Forces and at the same time forgetting that it was to Pakistan's advantage itself! Likewise, the Iraqis will blame the US and the whole world will be have another set of lunatic fanatics raging a menacing and brutal jihad in addition to the ones already on stream in Pakistan, in spite of Musharraf's claim of his efforts to stem the rot!

Further, without the Coalition of the Willing or an international force enforcing law and order in Iraq, there will be a genocide of Sunnis! One more genocide in history to tote up!

Iran would become an ascendant regional power in the Middle East - an anathema to the US!

So anyone who does not focus on the problems of the aftermath of a withdrawal is not suitable, in my opinion (which can be wrong), to take over as the Head of the most powerful nation of the Earth. It will only lead to more problems if such a person takes over.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

sirpuddingfoot

In my humble opinion, it would seem that the best option, for everyone, would be to transition this from a post-conflict stabilization effort to a humanitarian crisis, get the U.N. involved (despite the fact that U.N. has only shown its inability to act in any significant way over the past few years), and "re-deploy" our forces in a joint humanitarian intervention with a number of other countries.

I will preempt one of the comments I deem likely in reply, viz. the observation that we are currently in a "coalition".
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Blair announces Iraq troops cut
This article has a small box that shows a few striking figures about the number of troops contributed by each part of the "coalition of the willing".

To break these numbers out, I'll point out that before the "surge" campaign numbers, the U.S. has approximately 18.5 times the number of troops contributed by Britain. The total of non-U.S. troops in Iraq totals 13590. That means, using pre-surge figures, we have 9.71 times as many troops in Iraq as ALL other coalition forces combined. Taking into consideration the addition of the ~21,500 troops from the surge campaign, we will have 11.3 times as many troops as all other coalition forces combined. If Britain does reduce its numbers, that would take us to an incredible 12.8 times as many troops as all other coalition forces combined.

These figures should point out that the idea that this remains a "coalition" is ridiculous. The U.S. needs to appeal to other countries for assistance in stabilizing the country and contributing to a humanitarian effort.

Dreadnought

I dont think you will have to worry about him becoming President.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

astralis

sirpuddingfoot,

given the way iraq is, the only way humanitarian assistance would be given out is if the humanitarians came loaded for bear.

and to be honest, no one wants to clean up what is seen as the US's mistake.

NATO is already having a devil of a hard time supporting the US in what is seen as a national security matter- afghanistan- let alone bring in more people for a renewed iraq mission.

ray,

well, i will reserve final judgment until all this is done and passed, but from my standpoint as it is, surge or no, there are simply too few troops to institute a decent modicum of security, and the government in place is simply not that serious about bridging the sunni-shi'a divide.

if things do not improve soon, then it will become clearer than iraq is sucking away too much US power, and reducing the deterrence of US conventional military strength vis-a-vis the US's other challenges. in that situation, it might be necessary for the US to draw down in iraq (but not leave altogether), leaving a reduced force to squarely fight al-qaeda and making sure that the whole structure doesn't fall apart at the seams.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

gunnut

Unfortunately the liberal left cannot see this. They believe people will talk and work things out if we give them a chance. They do not understand that there are people in the world who would like nothing more than to kill other people for no reason other than they're different.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

gunnut

There's the magic word. UN is good at combatting disease and monitoring elections in a "safe" place. Once lead start flying, UN turns tail.

We can help with logistical resources in a humanitarian mission. Our combat forces should not and will not be under the command of UN in a warzone doing "humanitarian" mission.

But you forgot to mention that our defense budget is bigger than the next 20 nations combined. The coalition is not ridiculous. These nations contribute what they can to help. Some of them simply don't have the resources to send any more. In UK's case, thanks to their socialist government gutting their defense year after year for the last 2 decades.

Also, some countries are happy that we're not doing well and absolutely will not send help. For example: France, Germany, China, and Russia.

Ray

OK, many don't like the UN and yes, it has not been the knight in shining armour.

But what is the alternative?

The only other lot which is interested to bring peace, if not able to bring stability in Iraq, is the "Coalition of the Willing", which has rapidly become the "Coalition of the Unwilling"!

And daily the situation is getting worse. The problems of a Sunni genocide is in the offing or the division of Iraq into smaller nations, which too will lead to problems. It is very evident that the whole issue is spinning out of control and the US is chasing the 'will o' the wisp', in a manner of speaking.

Can the US alone take on the Iraq issue with a token force of some other nations who are slowly trickling out?

Even good old Howard, the sole champion, beyond the US shores, has rejected Cheney's request for 1400 more troops and has offered only 70 instructional staff (meaning non combat).

Therefore, would one like Iraq to be a monumental failure?

The only answer, as I can see, is that an international body takes over and bumbles along, if you wish, if the US is to bring back its soldiers.

However, I will concede that if there were some good reasons beyond what is publicly claimed as the rationale for the Iraq War, then the US withdrawal would make the whole effort to keep the US presence and control in Iraq become a waste of time, effort (all types), finances, men who have died and material!

The UN Military effort, when applied, has not turned tail to the best of my knowledge.

Parihaka

Barak Obama is going to be the acid test as to whether the American public has developed an immunity to hollywood propaganda

Officer of Engineers

Sir,

Too many examples. Srebrenecia, Rwanda, Dufar, Israeli-Hezbollah, Somalia, Krajina. Too many examples.

__________________
Chimo

Parihaka

Who, Obama or Sirpuddingfoot?

Ray

Colonel,

I am talking about the UN Military presence. It has always deterred greater mayhem and at places have been able to control the situation to a great degree.

I am not alluding to the political aspect of the UN.

Further, all the UN deployment or actions are decided by the security council and who are those nations? Those nations which are supposed to be the military powers of the world! It is their failure to make the security council work. Let's not make it a scapegoat when the actual goats are the Big Five!

If the Big Five cannot hammer out a consensus, why blame the UN? I know it is easy to blame the UN since it is no one's baby and instead a platform for the Big Five to push their agendas!

Here is an example of the agenda pushing of the Big Five;

Iran: UN's Big Five Near Agreement On Nuclear Program - RADIO FREE EUROPE / RADIO LIBERTY