Posted by
Pensereo on Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:55:28 PM
Before the Iraq War: Obama's Bad Judgments about the Coming War
Obama's Pre-Iraq-War Bad Judgments Cast Doubt on His Ability to be Commander-
In-Chief
SUMMARY:
1. In fairness, Obama showed pre-Iraq-war GOOD JUDGMENT by forecasting some
of the costs and undesireable consequences of an impending Iraq War.
2. However, Obama showed pre-Iraq-war BAD JUDGMENT by forecasting that
American lives that would be lost in such an impending Iraq War would be lost
in vain.
3. Obama showed pre-Iraq-war GROSSLY BAD JUDGMENT by forecasting that, in
such an impending Iraq War, maybe the fighting would be over in 2 to 6
months.
4. Since Obama's pre-war bad judgment relating to the length of time of "fighting" is directly related to the presidential duties of Commander-In-Chief, ONE MAY DOUBT OBAMA'S JUDGMENT AS IT RELATES TO THE PRESIDENTIAL DUTIES OF COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
INTRODUCTION:
The Iraq War started on March 20, 2003.
Please note that I use CAPITALIZATION to emphasize some of my own ideas, and
I also use CAPITALIZATION to emphasize some of the words in quotations that I
provide below.
In this article, I am considering two pre-Iraq-war statements by
Obama:
I. Obama's October 2, 2002 speech, and
II. An article entitled "Obama Challenges Opponents to Speak Out on War," by
The Associated Press, March 3, 2003.
Prior to the Iraq War, Barack Obama made a number of statements, some of
which he has lauded as being examples of his good judgment.
Moveover, OBAMA IS INFLATING THAT LAUDED PRE-WAR GOOD JUDGMENT TO SERVE AS EVIDENCE THAT OBAMA HAS GOOD JUDGMENT GENERALLY. One of
Obama's campaign slogans is "Judgment to Lead".
However, some of Obama's pre-war statements show, in my opinion, OBAMA'S BAD
JUDGMENT.
Understandably, for political purposes, Obama has ignored such instances of bad judgment in pre-Iraq-war days. Yet, when considering examples of a person's judgment, it seems to me only fair to point out examples of bad judgment as well as good judgment.
I. OBAMA'S OCTOBER 2, 2002 SPEECH
More specifically, Obama gives great weight to a speech he gave at an anti-war rally in Chicago on October 2, 2002 when he was an Illinois State Senator. In that speech, he stated that he opposed the U. S. having a war with Iraq. Obama quoted a portion of that speech in his book, The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, 2006, First Edition, Crown Publishers, New York, New York,
ISBN-13:978-0-307-23769-9,
ISBN-10:0-307-23769-9, www.crownpublishing.com.
On page 295 of that book, Obama quoted the following portion of his October
2, 2002 speech as follows:
"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 the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of AI Qaeda."
In my opinion, portions of the speech that Obama quoted show pre-war good
judgment of Obama.
However, there are other portions of the October 2, 2002 speech that, in my
opinion, show Obama's having pre-war bad judgment.
The full text of the speech can be found on Wikisource (related to Wikipedia)
at the following link --
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech
For your convenience, here is the FULL TEXT OF OBAMA'S OCTOBER 2, 2002
SPEECH:
"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as
an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war
in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only
through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust
and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root
out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I
would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no
shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war.
What I am opposed to is a rash war.
What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul
Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to
shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to
distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop
in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock
market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason
but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
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. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. 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, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, 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 US 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. So for those of us
who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear
message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's
finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated
intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support
terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-
coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN
inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-
proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia
safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and
that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already
in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop
feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called
allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing
their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and
inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up
without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of
terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle
East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests
of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we
willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption
and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have
occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom,
and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that
hellish path blindly. NOR SHOULD WE ALLOW THOSE WHO WOULD MARCH OFF AND PAY THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE, WHO WOULD PROVE THE FULL MEASURE OF DEVOTION WITH THEIR BLOOD, TO MAKE SUCH AN AWFUL SACRIFICE IN VAIN."
IT IS THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE QUOTED FULL SPEECH THAT I AM CONCERNED WITH, and that I have CAPITALIZED. The lines from Obama's October 2, 2002 speech that I capitalized above are a REVERSAL IN MEANING of the following lines from Abraham Lincoln's famed Gettysburg Address, portions of which I have
CAPITALIZED for purposes of comparison, and quote below.
Lincoln stated:
"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before
us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause
for which THEY GAVE THE LAST FULL MEASURE OF DEVOTION -- THAT WE HERE HIGHLY RESOLVE THAT THESE DEAD SHALL NOT HAVE DIED IN VAIN -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
By comparing Obama's words and Lincoln's words, it appears to me that OBAMA,
IN HIS PRE-WAR SPEECH, IS FORECASTING THAT AMERICAN DEATHS IN AN IMPENDING IRAQ WAR WILL BE IN VAIN.
In my opinion, SUCH A PRE-WAR STATEMENT OF OBAMA SHOWS BAD JUDGMENT, unless, of course, Obama now believes that American deaths in the Iraq War have been and will continue to be in vain. Such a belief, would be, in my opinion,
another example of Obama's bad judgment, this time Obama's ongoing-war bad judgment.
II. ARTICLE ENTITLED "OBAMA CHALLENGES OPPONENTS TO SPEAK OUT ON WAR," BY THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS, MARCH 3, 2003
A quotation from this article can be found at both of the following links:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/10/22/15415/699
and
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/barack-obamas- march-2003-
public-statements-opposing-the-iraq-war/
From the article entitled "Obama Challenges Opponents to Speak Out on War,"
by The Associated Press, March 3, 2003, I quote as follows.
Please note that I have provided CAPITALIZATION for words I want to
emphasize. The quote is:
(begin quote)
"What's tempting is to take the path of least resistance and keep quiet on
the issue, KNOWING THAT MAYBE IN TWO OR THREE OR SIX MONTHS, AT LEAST THE FIGHTING WILL BE OVER AND YOU CAN SEE HOW IT PLAYS ITSELF OUT," said Obama, a state senator from Chicago.
(end quote)
Clearly, OBAMA'S PRE-WAR FORECAST AS TO HOW LONG THE FIGHTING WOULD LAST WAS A PRE-WAR GROSSLY BAD JUDGMENT. It is now 5 years later, and the fighting still continues.
Even, hypothetically, if Obama tacitly assumed that the time period for
"fighting" in an impending Iraq War in 2003 would be virtually the same time
period as the "fighting" in the first Gulf War (just under 7 months, from
August 2, 1990 to February 28, 1991), such a hypothetical assumption would
also show pre-war GROSSLY BAD JUDGMENT.
A wide variety of circumstances differed between the first Gulf War in 1990-
1991 and an impending Iraq War in 2003, and there would be virtually no
reason for any sound thinker to believe that the time period of "fighting"
an impending Iraq War would be substantially less than (2 months) or
substantially equal to (6 months) the time period of "fighting" in the first
Gulf War (just under 7 months).
Moreover, there are numerous wars, aside from World War I, World War II, and
the Korean War, in which the United States carried out "fighting", that
Obama should have known about on March 3, 2003, and he should have known
that "fighting" in those wars spanned time periods much longer than 2 to 6
months. Such previous wars include: Vietnam War (over 10 years); Kosovo
War (3 years); and NATO War in Afghanistan (over 2 years by March 3, 2003).
Also, there are other wars, where the United States did not carry out
"fighting", but wherein "fighting" between opponents in those wars had taken
periods of time much longer than 2 to 6 months. Such previous wars include:
Iran-Iraq War ((over 7 years); Arab-Israeli Conflict (over 54 years by
March 3, 2003); and the Soviet War in Afghanistan (over 9 years).
Since such a pre-war judgment by Obama relating to a time period of
"fighting" in an Iraq war was clearly a GROSSLY BAD JUDGMENT, and since
judgments about "fighting" where the United States is "fighting" (and
perhaps even where the United States is not "fighting") are directly
related to the presidential duties of Commander-In-Chief, I think it is fair
to say that ONE MAY DOUBT OBAMA'S JUDGMENT AS IT RELATES TO THE DUTIES OF COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.