Obama Vs. The Smart Guys (And Dumb Wars)

The Nation: Obama’s Victory Marks A Sea Change In The American Foreign Policy Establishment

(The Nation)  This column was written by Eric Alterman.

---

One of the many (many) salutary aspects of Barack Obama's impending presidential nomination is the sea change his victory marks in the battle for the mind-set of the American foreign policy establishment. Not only was Obama unambiguously opposed to the American invasion of Iraq back when it mattered but - in marked contrast to the Clinton campaign - so were most of his advisers and supporters. Indeed, without this essential distinction from his opponent, coupled with her unwillingness to repudiate or apologize for her vote for George W. Bush's war, the Obama campaign would likely never have found the base of support it needed to mount a serious nomination fight.

Recall the bracing good sense of Obama's October 2002 speech to a rally organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq: "I...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 [has] 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."

Though it fueled his primary victories, Obama's prescience regarding Iraq was actually a handicap with many in the media. Amazingly, given the scope of the catastrophe the war has visited on the United States and the world, the spectrum of punditocracy opinion on foreign policy remains dominated by people who got Iraq entirely wrong and are proud of it. On the right we get arguments like that from The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes, who believes that "Obama's not in quite as strong a position on the war in Iraq as he really thinks he is, because the entire world believed that Saddam Hussein in Iraq had weapons of mass destruction." Much of the left and center, meanwhile, remain wedded to the view articulated by liberal pundit Richard Cohen, who, borrowing from the French ex-Stalinist Pierre Courtade, insisted, "You and your kind were wrong to be right; we were right to be wrong." As Slate's Timothy Noah, a repentant war supporter, noted not long ago, "Five years after this terrible war began, it remains true that respectable mainstream discussion about its lessons is nearly exclusively confined to people who supported the war, even though that same mainstream acknowledges, for the most part, that the war was a mistake." And yet the "people who opposed U.S. entry into the Iraq war, it would appear, are insufficiently 'serious' to explain why they were right."

It would nevertheless be a mistake for those of us who knew better at the time to dismiss forever the judgment of everyone who was taken in. Mistakes, after all, are endemic to foreign and military policy given the unpredictability of events and the difficulty of securing reliable information in a place like Iraq. But the onus ought to be on those who drove this SUV off the cliff to explain why we should ever strap ourselves into their vehicle again. Slate's Jacob Weisberg is surely correct to observe that "it's incumbent upon those of us who blew the biggest foreign-policy decision of the past decade to try to understand our mistake--and to try to learn something from it."

That learning process, however, has been stalled not only by the unwillingness of the hawks to look in the mirror but also by a lack of intellectual rigor on the part of those who did. Typically, neocons either deny the fact of a mistake or blame the Iraqis for what has gone wrong. As Charles Krauthammer explains it, "The root problem lies with Iraqis and their political culture." Liberals and moderates tend to foist all the blame on the Bush Administration's incompetence and fecklessness, as if this was somehow news to them in 2003 and now makes their criticism all the more valuable. As Leon Wieseltier views things, their position as supporters of the war "gives them a perverse and somewhat paradoxical authority in expressing their criticisms of the way the war was conducted." Others blame - pace Michael Ignatieff - the fact that they are academics, because "a sense of reality doesn't always flourish in elite institutions." Yet these same elite universities happened to be the locus of opposition to the war when Ignatieff - now a politician in Canada - was braying for it.

While The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan - there, I said it - and Jonathan Rauch, along with others, have engaged in serious self-critiques, I was recently reminded of just how rare these are when reading a partial draft of a lengthy manuscript by former New Republic editor and especially aggressive liberal hawk Peter Beinart. He was one of the few journalists Bill Moyers interviewed for his Buying the War documentary to demonstrate Beinart's genuine contrition for the irrational exuberance he exhibited when arguing on behalf of war. Inspired by his mistakes in Iraq, he's embarked on an examination of the role that "toughness" and "hubris" have played in determining America's response to world events. Whether Beinart succeeds is to some degree beside the point; in undertaking the effort, he is demonstrating what it means to be a responsible member of the nation's elite. Just how few of his fellow hawks of the left, right and center have joined Beinart on this journey serves as another reminder of how fortunate this country is to have before it a presidential candidate who needed no instruction in the first place. "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars," Barack Obama explained six years ago. He got it right. Now, perhaps, so can we...

[pvperson]

If your suggesting that we have learned from our mistake, your wrong. Evidenced by the escalating rhetoric about Iran. I predict that Bush/Cheney will attack Iran (or use of Israel) before the end of the year. You can''t learn from a mistake if you don''t recognise it as a mistake.

[zoopster1]

Israel will attack Iran whether we want them to or not. We can condemn them, we can cut off aid, but we can''t stop them. All Iran has to do to avoid this is declare a halt to its nuke program, and allow IAEA inspections unlimited access. If they won''t do that, then they deserve to be bombed.

[jcr103]

Let''s put it this way. Obama will not be the empty suit that Bush is when he is president. That''s at least a step in the right direction.

[jntlw-2009]

What I don''''t understand is why the neocons are always blaming someone else for the wars and terrorism but refuse to look or even believe or consider that we (USA) might be to blame for some of what is happening. They always always take the side that we are right and justified in what we do. That simply is not true. We cannot learn as a person or as a nation if we do not look honestly at ourselves and learn from our mistakes. With the neocons it is always Democrats are evil or soft and the world is out to get us because they are jealous of our freedoms. That is just insane thinking.

[jntlw-2009]

Invade Iraq, who cares what the wusses al qaeda think, they started this by attacking us, who cares what any middle eastern country thinks of us, I think of them as rag heads, if they don''''t like it to bad! And if any of you liberal freedom haters don''''t like it who cares! I don''''t!

+
You represent a scared illogical non-thinking minority of Americans - Name calling, mocking, screaming your illogical remarks ad nausium. You are filled with fearful hate rather than trying to find a solution. You make no sense and I assume you don''t want to make any sense. You just want to get those people that hurt you. We need to be in Afghanistan and get OBL, but we should never have gone to Iraq. That mistake will be with the Bush Administration as its greedly and stupid legacy. History cannot wipe that off the page. All the hubris and ranting and fear mongering in the world is not going to change that or his historicly incompetent legacy.

[mcvet]

Invade Iraq, who cares what the wusses al qaeda think, they started this by attacking us, who cares what any middle eastern country thinks of us, I think of them as rag heads, if they don''''t like it to bad! And if any of you liberal freedom haters don''''t like it who cares! I don''''t!

Obuma is a coward and wants to talk to everyone and say nothing at the same time, no action Obuma he will be called, you will see.

Posted by zgomer at 05:07 PM : Jun 29, 2008
+ report abuse

Yeah yeah! You Nazi''s have been SO successful to this point why not try to shift the focus!! Our Troops are worn out fighting a War that had nothing to do with any attack on this nation and is based on LIES, PURE no doubt about it LIES. Not ONE American should have died in Iraq but to a Fascist that''s success!! The REAL enemy, the one in a Safe Haven THEY created?? Well they don''t like to talk about that!! ROFLMAO SIEG HEIL BUSH

[mcvet]

Let''''s put it this way. Obama will not be the empty suit that Bush is when he is president. That''''s at least a step in the right direction.

Posted by jcr103 at 04:53 PM : Jun 29, 2008
+ report abuse

He also, will NOT use our OVER EXTENDED Military as a police force for Oil Company''s!!

[mcvet]

If Iran develops nuclear weapons, I shudder to think of the consequences..They must be stopped somehow....

Posted by willo1301 at 04:14 PM : Jun 29, 2008
+ report abuse

Yeah how are you planning on doing that Swastika Breath. Our troops are extended as it is to the point they can''t properly defend THIS nation... The Fascist have pretty much put us in a NO WIN situation as far as negotiations is concerned... like Iran doesn''t know we''re extended beyond our means... but hey when your a bully and you HAVE no friends in the world, those things happen!! SIEG HEIL BUSH!!

[samthetvcat]

pt 2

So like instead of looking for a hawkish Dem for VP, he''d instead go for somebody anti-war from the start. Instead of playing the GOP game of who''s tougher, he''d stick with truth and facts: predictions of terrorist attacks could be countered by highlighting our increased national security in cities at landmarks/subways/powerplants, the training law enforcement has received, the crisis management plans set in place. He could use the opportunity to point out that he''d hopefully be able to rely on Rudy Giuliani in a crisis because it''s him and not McCain who''s got that experience. He could also point out that retaliation against terrorists would be easy since we''re already at war with half the middle-east, and since war against the Saudis isn''t really viable given that we''re dependent on their oil.

Like after Barack breaks it down, are people REALLY going to feel safer with McLame in charge? If the Saudis attack, isn''t he liable to just go and start a war with Iran? For no particular reason? Is that what people really want?!?

[samthetvcat]

pt 1

Huffington Post has a headline about Barack undercutting his brand by suddenly turning right on national security issues - Iran, wiretapping, gun control, the death penalty. And yesterday I was all like that it''s not Barack''s fault he has to insulate himself from fear-mongering because time and again swing voters have been shown to panic when push comes to shove and go GOP. But that being said, the point''s well taken . . . I guess there''s plusses to going this route, but the drawback is that it also tends to make people think that if Barack had been in the Senate, doesn''t this tend to show that he''d have likely voted for the Iraq War Resolution just like Hillary? I think there IS a vulnerability in people feeling just as scared that maybe Barack''s judgment is susceptible to being compromised just like so many others.

I wonder whether the riskier route might actually be the safer if pulled off properly - like if Barack wholeheartedly embraced the anti-war platform, anti-wiretapping, pro-gun control, a death penalty for murder one with special circumstances only then the flipside is that he''d be able to offer the reassurance of constancy and true authenticity (?)

[omega39-2009]

Posted by SamTheTVCat

Sam, Paul Craig Roberts did a very good job of pointing this out and why we should still vote for Obama.

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/080617_obama.htm

[samthetvcat]

PS Maybe one way to demonstrate his ''hawkishness'' might be to attack the GOP laxity in inspecting shipping containers (?)

[samthetvcat]

omega39, that''s a great argument - I''m fully on board, but then again I was with Kerry too . . . I''m just kind of scared because I don''t really know what was in peoples minds when they voted for Bush a second time - scary if people vote GOP again!!!!! :(

[samthetvcat]

JTait2, why don''t you just go ahead and do that . . . sounds like a plan . . .

[omega39-2009]

omega39, that''''s a great argument - I''''m fully on board, but then again I was with Kerry too . . . I''''m just kind of scared because I don''''t really know what was in peoples minds when they voted for Bush a second time - scary if people vote GOP again!!!!! :(

Posted by SamTheTVCat

Sam, it was fear. Di_ck Cheney was running around promising a nuclear attack on a US city if a Democrat won. The thing about fear (and torture) is that people become desensitized over time, I believe that is what we are witnessing now. On another board, Lieberman is promising a terror attack and faux news continues to try and sow the seeds of doubt. The problem is people have been knocked out of their comfort zones economically and they know (even if they won''t admit it to themselves) who is responsible. I started out hoping for Edwards but I believe Obama will make a fine president, there will be those that will vote against him because of his color and some that will vote against him on ideological grounds. Still, I honestly believe between the discouraged Republican base, and the millions of young voters that have taken this election to heart, we will see a Democratic landslide.

[omega39-2009]

In this time of crisis, we need the Best.
We need Experience. We need Hillary and Bill.

We can''''t afford to take a chance on a kid who still needs training wheels on his bike.

Posted by JTait2

Between NAFTA and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (that gutted large parts of the Glass-Steagall Act) Bill Clinton did plenty to set up the loss of jobs and contribute to the mortgage meltdown. If however you like that kind of s/c/r/e/w the middle class economics take heart, Obama has chosen the Clinton architect Robert Rubin to be his financial adviser.

[andor3]

"we have to do is let it be known that Hillary backers are NOT going to vote for Obama ..."

Hillary is not a candidate. All past Clinton supporters are now Obama supporters. People claiming otherwise are just Republican shills angry that the unity in the Democratic party is so solid and makes Sen. Obama unbeatable; they would love to sow any discord.

No Democrat or voter who cares about America would oppose Obama.

[reunionpi]

Obama''s mother''s original Social Security Number Application

www.webofdeception.com

[sparks224]

The Republicans are so pathetic, I would feel sorry for them if they weren''t so effing EVIL.

[ausus-2009]

Iran will advance its nuclear weapons program. Obama will do nothing
Syria will invade Israel after reoccupying Lebanon. Obama will do nothing.
Militant forces will get together to cut off supplies of oil from the US. Obama will do nothing.
South Korea will say "only kidding" about shutting down its nuclear weapons program. Obama will do nothing.
Post-Olympics China will make a run at taking over Taiwan, having subdued Tibet. Obama will do nothing.
The flow of illegal immigration to the US will increase. Obama will do nothing.
Speeches don''t count. Actions do.

[babooph]

He will not cut military spending by 75%& stop the idiotic support of Israel,& get the massive funds back the rich got from "tax reform"-other steps are just a bandaid on a sabre cut.

[user168-2009]

"War is the tool of small-minded scoundrels who worship the death of others on the altar of their greed."

"Anyone who has proclaimed violence his method inexorably must choose lying as his principle."

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."

"War should be made a crime, and those who instigate it should be punished as criminals."

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"

[joe1022joe]

On February 16, 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said the "the defense of Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States." On February 14, 1945, while returning from the Yalta Conference, Roosevelt met with King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia on the Great Bitter Lake in the Suez Canal, the first time a U.S. president had visited the Persian Gulf region.

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on 23 January 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union%u2014the Cold War adversary of the United States%u2014from seeking hegemony in the Persian Gulf. After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil," Carter proclaimed:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. (full speech)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ca
rter_Doctrine

[samthetvcat]

---"Sam, it was fear. Di_ck Cheney was running around promising a nuclear attack on a US city if a Democrat won. The thing about fear (and torture) is that people become desensitized over time, I believe that is what we are witnessing now."---
Posted by omega39

That''s a great point omega...Dems are in a different place now than we were in 2004. The economic cost hadn''t yet hit home four years ago, and the war will be five years old by November, not just a year old.

As for that Lieberman tactic, maybe Barack ought to counter by making a prediction of his own that he wouldn''t put it past the GOPigs to start ramping up activity against Iran come the fall, and that the urgency they tout will NOT be based on threat but rather politics (?) Because the GOP have already gone on record saying if they can make people feel like we''re at war on election day then they will win because they''re seen as being stronger on ''terrorism''.

We need to start undercutting that advantage, not just to win but hopefully to prevent them from actually hurling bombs to win the election!!!!! That makes me sound like one of those conspiracy nuts, but given that this admin lied us into a war is this scenario really that far from the realm of possibility?

[patriot12436]

I have stated on another story what it would take to get me behind McCain 100%. Now i would like to state what it would take to get me behind obama 100%. Show me the myths are myths, address them publicly and with true facts, show me you and your wife are not the racists i believe, show me you do not have a hidden agenda to sell us out to the terrorists, show me you will represent America as one people, not just your race, show me you can stand up and make the necessary decisions facing a president, show me you ill address the problems facing all America, show me you will stand by our constitution and support it the way our forefathers wrote it, show me you mean it when you say you cannot support wright and his radical views, show me that you will not GD America. If he can do this , then i will be behind him 100%.

[samthetvcat]

In this time of crisis, we need the Best.
We need Experience. We need Hillary and Bill.

We can''''t afford to take a chance on a kid who still needs training wheels on his bike.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by JTait2

[samthetvcat]

---"In this time of crisis, we need the Best.
We need Experience. We need Hillary and Bill. We can''t afford to take a chance on a kid who still needs training wheels on his bike."---
Posted by JTait2

Oops, I pressed the publish button by mistake! :D

I was just going to say that as a female I find it embarrassing to see women who can''t seem to face a situation and say okay, here are the options, here are the candidates, this is what matters to me, so this is the action I need to take. It sounds so out of it to hear women say ''we need Hillary'' - well, I mean she lost, so that option is off the table. Like there''s an empowerment issue here that''s kind of embarrassing to see in other women . . .

Embarrassing point number two is seeing that Hillary supporters only seem capable of parroting her talking points. That being said, it was great to see Hildebeast start attempting to unify the party by finally saying something negative about McSame. But if she and Bill don''t want to be remembered for dysfunctionally trying to clean up their Monica legacy by trying to get back into the White House by voting for a war without reading the NIE report and by lying about her experience, they better start putting out some different talking points for their lemmings to absorb and parrot.

That''s all . . .

[texanforlogi]

Posted by omega39 at 07:31 PM : Jun 29, 2008


I pray daily that your prescience proves prophetic. We can''t let fear rule the election again.

[javalation]

At a time when the Bush war machine was obviously attempting to destroy anyone who opposed their war effort, most politicians got on board for political reasons. Obama demonstrated the ability and willingness to see the truth beyond the politics. We need a President with this quality.

[noloyalisti]

I agree, Obama has shown himself to be very wise. He obviously has great intelligence and wants to use it for the good of the many. As has been reflected in ours nations'' actions and much of our reasoning, we need some serious smarts to save us.

[eroosevelt08]

When Colin Powell showed the United Nations his visual aids showing where Iraqi war equipment and other evils were located, I think he thought he was speaking the truth. I believed him, and so did many others. I would have voted with those who gave Bush the go ahead IF diplomacy failed. It''s just that Bush misused the power before diplomatic efforts had been exhausted. The vote was to give teeth to the diplomacy. Who knew Saddam Huseein was an idiot who thought he could bluff us? I totally agreed with Senator Clinton''s vote at the time. Now we know differently.

[joyous88]

we can not blame only Bush for this mess, McCain and the other republicon obstructionists in congress have
enabled all of his criminal actions.

If the democrats had a few more votes and if the republicons did not march in GOOSESTEP with Bush
thsi debacle , and many other debacles, some yet to come, could have been avoided.

the republicon party and the evangelical conservatives
have become the new fascists, the new american NAZI''s

[guysdigdirt]

we can not blame only Bush for this mess, McCain and the other republicon obstructionists in congress have
enabled all of his criminal actions.

If the democrats had a few more votes and if the republicons did not march in GOOSESTEP with Bush
thsi debacle , and many other debacles, some yet to come, could have been avoided.

the republicon party and the evangelical conservatives
have become the new fascists, the new american NAZI''''s
Posted by joyous88

You are such a whiner, congress has been held captive by the democrats for how long now and not one promise they made to get control has come to fruition. You are just a whiner and a loser.

[guysdigdirt]

I agree, Obama has shown himself to be very wise. He obviously has great intelligence and wants to use it for the good of the many. As has been reflected in ours nations'''' actions and much of our reasoning, we need some serious smarts to save us.
Posted by noloyalisti

What has obama done to show his intelligence? what has he ever done to show who he is, in a positive way that is. he has shown his distaste for the US Flag and the country as a whole. what has he ever done that was a positive thing? hang out with felons, follow a mentor that is a hateful person?

[guysdigdirt]

In this time of crisis, we need the Best.
We need Experience. We need Hillary and Bill.

We can''''t afford to take a chance on a kid who still needs training wheels on his bike.
Posted by JTait2

I agree in a time of crisis we need strenght and wisdom, but saying hillary and bill are that is an oxxymoron. obama does not have it either.

[guysdigdirt]

The vote was to give teeth to the diplomacy. Who knew Saddam Huseein was an idiot who thought he could bluff us? I totally agreed with Senator Clinton''''s vote at the time. Now we know differently.
Posted by ERoosevelt08

I agree with you for the most part, but now that we are there, what do we do? Just pack up and leave? I hate the war as much as anyone, but it is not a black and white issue.