2008.01.07: January 7, 2008: Headlines: Election2008 - Obama: Figures: COS - Congo Kinshasa: Foreign Policy: Brookings Institute: Wall Street Journal: Michael O'Hanlon writes: Obama and Iraq

Peace Corps Online: Directory: Congo - Kinshasa (Zaire): Special Report: National Security Expert and Congo Kinshasa RPCV Michael O'Hanlon: 2008.01.07: January 7, 2008: Headlines: Election2008 - Obama: Figures: COS - Congo Kinshasa: Foreign Policy: Brookings Institute: Wall Street Journal: Michael O'Hanlon writes: Obama and Iraq

By Admin1 (admin) (pool-141-157-18-99.balt.east.verizon.net - 141.157.18.99) on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 1:08 pm: Edit Post

Michael O'Hanlon writes: Obama and Iraq

Michael O'Hanlon writes: Obama and Iraq

But if he truly wants to be the candidate of inclusiveness, Mr. Obama has some work to do. This is particularly evident on the central national security challenge of the day, the Iraq war. Mr. Obama's problem is not his initial opposition to the war. At this point, that stance strikes many voters as prescient. Even for those of us who believe the main problem in Iraq was shoddy planning by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others, Mr. Obama's position is hard to dismiss. But there are nonetheless two problems with Mr. Obama's Iraq views that call into doubt his ability to build a truly inclusive American political movement. First, he seems contemptuous of the motivations of those who supported the war. While showing proper respect for the heroic efforts of our troops, he displays little regard for the views of those many Americans who saw the case for war in the first place -- even as he has called for a more civil and respectful political debate. Michael O'Hanlon, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute and a Visiting Lecturer at Princeton University, served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Congo Kinshasa.

Michael O'Hanlon writes: Obama and Iraq

Obama and Iraq
By MICHAEL O'HANLON
January 7, 2008; Page A13

One of Sen. Barack Obama's many strengths is his ability to inspire beyond party lines. Because he lacks the baggage of the past, and because his melodic message of hope speaks to many, he garnered much more support from independents in Iowa than either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards.

But if he truly wants to be the candidate of inclusiveness, Mr. Obama has some work to do. This is particularly evident on the central national security challenge of the day, the Iraq war. Mr. Obama's problem is not his initial opposition to the war. At this point, that stance strikes many voters as prescient. Even for those of us who believe the main problem in Iraq was shoddy planning by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others, Mr. Obama's position is hard to dismiss.

But there are nonetheless two problems with Mr. Obama's Iraq views that call into doubt his ability to build a truly inclusive American political movement. First, he seems contemptuous of the motivations of those who supported the war. While showing proper respect for the heroic efforts of our troops, he displays little regard for the views of those many Americans who saw the case for war in the first place -- even as he has called for a more civil and respectful political debate.

This is unfortunate. Saddam Hussein was one of the worst and most dangerous dictators of the late 20th century. The basic proposition of unseating him was hardly an unconscionable idea, even if President Bush's approach to doing so was unilateralist, arrogant and careless. With our last image of Saddam a resigned figure heading for the gallows, it is easy to forget who this monster was.

He had used chemical weapons against his own defenseless people, as well as the armies of Iran; he violated 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions that demanded his verifiable disarmament; he had the blood of perhaps one million people on his hands; he transformed his country into what Iraqi dissident Kanan Makiya famously called the "republic of fear." (Saddam's behavior didn't improve when we tried the kind of high-level diplomacy Mr. Obama favors by sending envoys like Donald Rumsfeld and April Glaspie.)

Saddam's worst may have been behind him by 2003 -- but he was grooming his sadistic sons Uday and Qusay as successors with unknowable consequences. His WMD programs were in limbo, we now know. But before the war even German intelligence thought him only half a dozen years from a nuclear weapon.

Sanctions limited his funds for military programs, but the sanctions were eroding fast in the years before the invasion. Saddam's links to al Qaeda were overdramatized, but Saddam's own record of atrocities against his own people, Iranians and Kuwaitis, as well as his support for anti-Israeli terrorists, were heinous enough.

Yet Mr. Obama consistently accuses those who supported the war of political motivations -- and unsavory ones at that. On Dec. 27, for example, Mr. Obama said in Des Moines, Iowa, "You can't fall in line behind the conventional thinking on issues as profound as war and then offer yourself as the leader who is best prepared to chart a new and better course for America."

That echoed earlier comments, such as his Oct. 15 speech in Madison, Wis., in which, discussing Iraq, he criticized his opponents for succumbing to "triangulation and poll-driven politics." Within the Democratic Party, this message seems to work fairly well. But as a way to build national consensus -- or as proof of a new, more sincere and fair-minded brand of politics -- it falls short.

Mr. Obama's second Iraq problem is his insistence that, whatever happens there during 2008, he would withdraw all our main combat forces in the first 16 months of his presidency. Such a message may resonate with Americans, and particularly Democrats, right now. However, it is unlikely that centrist voters will support such a policy once they fully consider its likely implications for Iraqi -- and American -- national security. Given Iraq's fragile institutions, and the fresh wounds among its Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, it is doubtful that Iraq can avoid renewed civil warfare after a rapid U.S. withdrawal.

Strategically, it makes little sense to rush for the exits in Iraq when violence has declined by two-thirds over the last year -- a remarkable accomplishment that Mr. Obama belittled in Manchester, N.H., during the Democratic debate on Saturday when he claimed that such a development only brought Iraq back to 2006 levels of lethality (which is probably not true).

Mr. Obama's other comment Saturday, that Sunni tribes only organized against al Qaeda after Democrats won the 2006 Congressional elections, was also incorrect. The Sunni awakening began earlier, for reasons having little to do with American politics. And it is more likely to be jeopardized than buttressed by promises of hasty American withdrawal: In that event, Sunnis and Shiites will worry more about war against each other, and be less inclined to work with each other or to target extremists within their own midst.

Politically, Republicans will surely try to paint any policy of rapid, complete withdrawal as Democratic defeatism. Mr. Obama needs to think hard about whether his uplifting message of hope is really bulletproof enough to withstand these charges -- and about whether his Iraq views truly reflect the non-ideological, nonpartisan wisdom of the American people that he seeks to lead.

Mr. O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He advised Hillary Clinton until last summer, when his support for the surge led to a cutting of ties by mutual consent.




Links to Related Topics (Tags):

Headlines: January, 2008; RPCV Michael O'Hanlon (Congo Kinshasa); Election2008 - Obama; Figures; Peace Corps Congo Kinshasa; Directory of Congo Kinshasa RPCVs; Messages and Announcements for Congo Kinshasa RPCVs





When this story was posted in January 2008, this was on the front page of PCOL:


Contact PCOLBulletin BoardRegisterSearch PCOLWhat's New?

Peace Corps Online The Independent News Forum serving Returned Peace Corps Volunteers RSS Feed
Dodd vows to filibuster Surveillance Act Date: October 27 2007 No: 1206 Dodd vows to filibuster Surveillance Act
Senator Chris Dodd vowed to filibuster the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that would grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that helped this administration violate the civil liberties of Americans. "It is time to say: No more. No more trampling on our Constitution. No more excusing those who violate the rule of law. These are fundamental, basic, eternal principles. They have been around, some of them, for as long as the Magna Carta. They are enduring. What they are not is temporary. And what we do not do in a time where our country is at risk is abandon them."

Peace Corps News Peace Corps Library Peace corps History RPCV Directory Sign Up

Peace Corps Volunteers Remain Safe in Kenya Date: January 5 2008 No: 1218 Peace Corps Volunteers Remain Safe in Kenya
The U.S. Peace Corps has evacuated 35 of its volunteers from western Kenya because of the violence that has rocked the country since the disputed December 27 presidential election. The Peace Corps has 144 volunteers based in Kenya, although the organization says 22 of them are currently out of the country. An agency statement says the remaining volunteers have been consolidated in a variety of locations. Latest News: Peace Corps says volunteers in Kenya remain safe.

November 12, 2007: This Month's Top Stories Date: November 12 2007 No: 1210 November 12, 2007: This Month's Top Stories
Chris Dodd's service began with Peace Corps 9 Nov
Matthew McCue called back to Iraq from Peace Corps 9 Nov
Tschetter Visits Turkmenistan 9 Nov
Lara Weber writes: Oprah Winfrey's stumble 9 Nov
Heather Thompson works with P Diddy 7 Nov
Karen Hughes' public diplomacy came to nothing 4 Nov
James Rupert writes: Musharraf seizes power 3 Nov
Martin Puryear is Man of Mysteries 2 Nov
Sarah Chayes says Taliban score major victory 1 Nov
John Sullivan runs Sudan Divestment Task Force. 30 Oct
Tom Bissell writes: Climbing Mount Kilimanjaro 28 Oct
Chris Shays to seek 12th term 25 Oct
Helen Dudley can't stop giving 25 Oct
Joseph Acaba named to STS-119 Shuttle Crew 22 Oct
Vince Floriani in USA Today's All-USA Teacher Team 22 Oct
Kelly J. Morris writes "The Bight of Benin" 20 Oct
Charles Shelan was Buddhist monk Wondam’s teacher 19 Oct
Peace Corps returning to Liberia 18 Oct
David Peckham started Village Bicycle Project 16 Oct
Alberto Ibarguen announces grant for "Project Impunity" 15 Oct
Campbell Memorial Park boosts ecotourism 15 Oct
Bowers Family keep daughter's dream alive 15 Oct

What is the greatest threat facing us now?  Date: September 12 2007 No: 1195 What is the greatest threat facing us now?
"People will say it's terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing? I would approach this differently, in almost Marshall-like terms. What are the great opportunities out there - ones that we can take advantage of?" Read more.



Read the stories and leave your comments.








Some postings on Peace Corps Online are provided to the individual members of this group without permission of the copyright owner for the non-profit purposes of criticism, comment, education, scholarship, and research under the "Fair Use" provisions of U.S. Government copyright laws and they may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner. Peace Corps Online does not vouch for the accuracy of the content of the postings, which is the sole responsibility of the copyright holder.

Story Source: Wall Street Journal

This story has been posted in the following forums: : Headlines; Election2008 - Obama; Figures; COS - Congo Kinshasa; Foreign Policy; Brookings Institute

PCOL40296
47


Add a Message


This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Username:  
Password:
E-mail: