Obama, like Howard Dean in 2004, has long flogged that his opposition to the war before the invasion is demonstrative of his “better judgment” than virtually every other candidate. For example, last night he “swiped” at Clinton on this matter:
As someone who opposed the war from long before it started, including marching in several pre-war protests against the impending invasion, I think Obama is basically right: he did have better judgment, at least on that issue and at least at that time. However, it is much more difficult to convince me that opposing the Iraq war before it began is clearly demonstrative either of superior judgment on Iraq now, or that that it is demonstrative of better judgment in general. I know that will not be a popular position to take online, especially considering how we repeatedly mock the media for promoting pundits who were flat wrong on Iraq, and demoting those who were right. It is extremely frustrating that bad judgment has been rewarded by most established news outlets, especially since anti-war voices were all but entirely blacked out by those same news outlets before the war. The injustice, not to mention continuing danger to our democracy this implies, seems very real.
However, I would still be lying if I said the continued focus on the AUMF resonated with me. I don’t think it resonates with many Americans, either. Here is why:
Don’t scold: Currently, between 58% and 64% of the American people think invading Iraq was a bad idea (source). At the time of the authorization for the use of military force, between 58% and 68% of the American people though invading Iraq was a good idea (source). That means that between 16% and 32%, or about one-quarter, of the American public has changed their minds on Iraq since the time of the AUMF. In a real sense, telling Senator Clinton and other candidates they had bad judgment on this issue is very much telling one-quarter of the country they had bad judgment on this issue. People do not like scolding candidates, and that is a large percentage of the electorate to be scolding.
What is your judgment on Iraq now? While I was in the 30-40% of the public that opposed the war from the beginning, that does not mean I find the withdrawal plans of everyone in that 30-40% equally acceptable, and always superior to the other 60-70% of the country. Far from it, I have repeatedly made it clear that I think Bill Richardson’s plan is far and away the best plan. For example, here on Open Left, both the Obama and Richardson campaigns responded to my queries on what tasks they would have American troops continue to perform in Iraq once in office. The Richardson campaign said none and none. The Obama campaign said that it was impossible to know how many troops would be required to stay in Iraq. As someone who opposed the war from the beginning, I clearly and vastly prefer Richardson’s plan, which I think shows better judgment on Iraq now.
It simply does not seem like good judgment to me to argue that you will have American troops in Iraq to quell violence—ethnic or otherwise—when a huge amount of the violence in Iraq is directed against American troops. It also does not strike me as good judgment to say that you will end the war, but keep tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq (which some candidates are also saying). I don’t think I am alone on this, either. Just because I opposed the war before many other people did does not mean I am necessarily more prone to accept the redeployment plans of others who opposed it from the start.
Show a Broad Pattern. If a candidate wanted to show that his or her opposition to the Iraq war before the invasion is part of a broad pattern of sound judgment on foreign policy and military matters, then it should be coupled with a statement of general principle on foreign policy and military matters. Just being right on Iraq being wrong does not demonstrate a pattern in and of itself. Arguing against things like “the war on terror,” or against the entire neo-conservative philosophy of pre-emptive military invasion against countries that did not attack you, would demonstrate such a pattern of sound judgment. If you were right on Iraq, but you think pre-emptive military invasion is a good idea in some cases, again that does not strike me as sound judgment. It strikes me mainly as being lucky when it came to Iraq.
I really don’t think the AUMF vote narrative is resonating nationwide, and that the Obama campaign needs to try a different tactic. Specifically, that would include an improved redeployment plan, and coupling discussions of the AUMF vote with discussions of general principles on foreign policy. All of that, taken together, would indeed show a pattern of sound judgment on foreign policy and military matters. Unfortunately, right now, this is not a pattern I see any announced candidate fitting into. Everyone has done at least one of the following: supported / voted for the AUMF, presented a plan that leaves far too many American troops in Iraq, or failed to articulate their opposition to the Iraq war as part of a general philosophy that rejects conservative notions on military matters and foreign policy. OK, maybe Congressman Kucinich is the exception, but I am also not willing to support candidates who don’t support themselves by running full-blown campaigns (Kucinich ran full bore in 2004, but I'm not seeing it in 2008), nor am I willing to support candidates who openly give the finger to the movement by debating on Fox News. He hits both of those categories.
In short, I am not feeling the “superior judgment” argument based on the AUMF, and I don’t think many people are nationwide, either. But, maybe I am wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time. I’d like to hear what you think.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
