What Obama should have said about Iraq (since you asked...)

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Thu Mar 27, 2014, 02:51 PM - Edit history (2)

I am once again pinioned between the "cheerleaders" and the "haters."

It is spin to say Obama defended the Iraq War and it is spin to say he did not. "The Iraq War" is a broad rhetorical category.

What Obama did defend (explicitly) was the diplomatic process that preceded Iraq that everyone with sense to see knew was not a legitimate authorization of the Iraq war by the world community. It is wrong to defend that process, unless we are seeking to establish a precedent that nations are authorized to do things they know the UN is against, provided they can block the UN from holding a vote to formalize that opposition. (Any nation with a veto on the security council can ensure the "Well, they didn't say no" defense for anything.)

And what he did was to claim that Russia's annexation of Crimea was in some ways worse than Iraq, and that was a place he should never have gone, because Iraq is a crime of great proportion.

You just do not cite crimes that make people gag to even think about as any kind of upside of anything.

But not referencing the elephant in the room would be its own eerie sort of Orwellian defense.

So what should Obama have said, then?

This is as far as I would have gone...

Many have cited the American action in Iraq as somehow justifying Russia's annexation of Crimea, and other interference in Ukraine. But how could that be? If you opposed American action in Iraq then surely you must also oppose the Russian annexation of Crimea. In 2003 I spoke against America going into Iraq. I am before you in 2014 speaking against Russia annexing Crimea.

Added on Edit: This is what lawyers call "arguing in the alternative." There is no need to defend America on Iraq unless America invading Iraq somehow magically makes it right for Putin to annex Crimea. Does anyone think Putin is right to annex Crimea "because," and only because of Iraq? Then the merits of Iraq are not essential to the topic at hand and do not need to be argued to know whether Russia should have annexed Crimea. And though Obama's personal views are not definitive of the USA, the fact that he personally opposed both Iraq and Crimea demonstrates that one can do both. Not a confession, not a defense, just side-stepping as a poor justification for annexing Crimea.

[The Magistrate]

1. A Good Line, Sir

[cthulu2016]

2. Thank you

[DanTex]

3. I'll rec this even though I disagree.

I don't think that conceding an equivalence between Iraq and Crimea on the international stage is a good idea. I think it would play very badly domestically among everyone except for the solid left, and I think that it would weaken the international leverage against Putin.

However, I like this OP because this is the kind of thing we should be talking about. Not just "Obama is defending the Iraq War", but discussing why he said what he did, and what his other options were.

[cthulu2016]

14. I do not recommend conceding equivalence. The suggested line is directed outward, not inward.

It is directed against the argument, rather than against the merits.

Those apologizing for Russia, "because... Iraq!," are arguing that Iraq should be accepted as moral precedent, which is a bizarre stance.

The idea is to get past any argument about Iraq as useless, putting the president above or beyond the distasteful and somewhat dangerous position of arguing Iraq's merits.

Lawyers have a phrase for it—I think it is "Arguing in the alternative."

If Sam was dead before he was stabbed then it is not homicide whether John stabbed Sam or whether John was in France at the time. "Even if we stipulate John stabbed Sam (which we do not!!!) there is no homicide"

Crimea cannot be justified by Iraq and nobody wants to live in a two-wrongs-make-a-right world where Crimea could be justified by Iraq, so Iraq is irrelevant as justification.

Not the same as stipulating guilt in Iraq. Merely noting that the "Yeah Russia, Boo USA" stance is a fatally flawed position.

I acknowledge the diplomatic reasons against implying current American distance from our own invasion of Iraq... but presumably folks didn't line up to give Obama a Nobel Peace prize to encourage continuity of American foreign policy. The whole world hoped for the USA to distance itself from 2003, and I think that kind of finessed distancing of USA-2014 from USA-2003 would be understood and welcomed by most around the world.

The whole Iraq thing is an argument to side-step. It cannot be won, and it should not be won.

[DanTex]

20. Well, the person apologizing for Russia "because Iraq" is Putin.

I don't think he's actually trying to make a moral justification for Crimea. I think it's more like he's trying to make an argument as to why other countries trying to stop him would be unjustified. It's a little different, and more about realpolitik amorality. So his target audience isn't people who think the Iraq war was OK and might be convinced that Crimea is just as OK. It's people that are wary of US or NATO involvement in global affairs to begin with, and might be convinced to "let Russia take care of it's own backyard". Kind of like he's saying, "look, these kinds of things happen, you do it, we do it, everyone does it, so just back off and stay out of this".

Good point about the Nobel Peace Prize thing. But here's another thought. What he said about Iraq is pretty close to a side-step. One little paragraph. If he came out and admitted that Iraq was illegal, but now the US is going to lead the world in a new lawful direction, that couldn't possibly be some side paragraph. That would be a huge move, probably the kind of thing the Nobel Committee was hoping for, but huge nonetheless. What he said in that speech is about as little as he could have said without just letting the "but Iraq" argument stand unrebutted.

[WilliamPitt]

4. This.

[ProSense]

6. You should attend to that thread of yours. The OP does a better job of parsing. n/t

[polichick]

8. You should remove the word "racist" from yours - it's absurd.

[ProSense]

11. No, it's appropriately used. n/t

[el_bryanto]

16. It's guilt by association.

William Pitt Likes Donuts.

Rush Limbaugh Likes Donuts.

Rush Limbaugh and William Pitt agree on some fundamental principals.

or

William Pitt has been critical of Obama

Racist Jerks from coast to coast have been critical of Obama

William Pitt has something in common with Racist Jerks.

Of course William Pitt may not like Donuts which would ruin the analogy.

Bryant

[ProSense]

17. No, it's nothing of the sort. n/t

[el_bryanto]

18. Yes it is. It's exactly the same. nt

[cthulu2016]

19. No, not guilt by association

It is not guilt by association. It isn't like both liking donuts, or being in the same bowling league.

A thought process is what makes one a RW racist. It is definitive.

Prosense was indicating that Will Pitt's thought process is similar to that of a RW racist.

So it is more than guilt by association. It's really more of an accusation.

[el_bryanto]

21. But how are they getting to that thought process?

By them both being critical of Obama.

Bryant

[cthulu2016]

23. I wasn't defending that OP

I am saying it was worse than guilt by association, and closer to just an accusation.

But I wasn't really disagreeing with you.

Thinking about the phrase, back in the day, "guilt by association" was literal, meaning who you associated with. If you belonged to a club a lot of communists also belonged to, etc..

It has grown to include "association" in the sense of mental association, like, "I associate backward baseball caps with date rape," or, "I associate your argument with racists."

Both are fine.

[truebrit71]

5. Yup...invading Iraq was wrong, just like invading Crimea is wrong..

...and then you tout your own voting record showing that you actually DID vote against the Iraq war...very simple, no spin required, and nothing to parse..

But then again I don't play ninth-level ninja chess so what do I know?

[JoePhilly]

9. Obama wasn't in Congress at the time, so he can't say he voted against it.

He did however speak out against it at the time.

[cthulu2016]

10. Obama did not vote against, or for, Iraq. But he spoke against it.

He was still an Illinois state representative in 2003.

[ProSense]

12. And he stated that he opposed it.

He did parse his words, but what you stated in the OP isn't far from what he said.

Moreover, Russia has pointed to America’s decision to go into Iraq as an example of Western hypocrisy. Now, it is true that the Iraq War was a subject of vigorous debate not just around the world, but in the United States as well. I participated in that debate and I opposed our military intervention there. But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory. We did not grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people and a fully sovereign Iraqi state that could make decisions about its own future.

Of course, neither the United States nor Europe are perfect in adherence to our ideals, nor do we claim to be the sole arbiter of what is right or wrong in the world. We are human, after all, and we face difficult choices about how to exercise our power. But part of what makes us different is that we welcome criticism, just as we welcome the responsibilities that come with global leadership.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/26/remarks-president-address-european-youth

There was in fact a process to work with the international community...right up until Bush violated all agreements. On that score, Bush's and Putin's invasions are illegal.

Obama did defend his own actions in Iraq: ending the war and leaving it a sovereign state.

[okaawhatever]

25. It's important to note that with the current Security Council set-up there pretty much wasn't a

way to legally engage Iraq without the vote of Russia. Since Russia said they would veto any resolution, even if we had found wmd or nukes it still wouldn't have been a "legal" war it would have just been more moral. We also can't ignore that Saddam Hussein was a murdering despot who killed more of his own people than the American led Iraq war did. The UN had Iraq under sanctions for about 13 years before the US set foot in Iraq. The Anfal campaign alone killed as many Iraqis as the war did. That does not make the US invasion right or good, but we can't pretend that Iraq pre-invasion and Crimea pre-invasion are even close to the same thing. Iraq had used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War (Iran did too) and on the Kurds during the Anfal campaign. For years they fought the disarmament ordered by the UN and several other violations of international law. How is that even remotely close to what was going on in Crimea?

[pscot]

39. Saddam was estimated to have killed about 300,000 Iraqis

Conservative estimates of the death toll from our intervention are around 600,000. If Saddam was evil, what does that make us?

[truebrit71]

22. I stand corrected...he wasn't in position to vote against the war...

...Thanks for pointing that out.

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. that would have been much better

Before one insists that the invasion of Crimea was worse - one does have to consider which invasion opened with such a massive bombing campaign that its planners proudly named it "shock and awe?" - Which invasion included blasting their way into the capital city - pretty much shooting and blasting away almost everything that was even suspected of being in their way? Which invasion ended with hundreds of thousands of civilian death?

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. When the President says "I", he speaks for the country.

To the average Russian, the distinction that it was his predecessor who got us in, is subtle to the point of irrelevant.

I don't like what he said either, but the objective is to discourage Russia from annexing any more neighbors, and I don't think your suggested statement is an improvement in that regard.

[grahamhgreen]

15. Well said. And backed up by prosecutions for war crimes and torture would have rung true.

[Capt. Obvious]

28. We only prosecute foreign nationals for those crimes

[berni_mccoy]

24. Obama didn't say Russia's annexation of Crimea was worse, he said it can't be compared to Iraq

That is all.

[cthulu2016]

30. He said (as the OP correctly characterizes) that Crimea is in some way worse.

He cited ways that Iraq was better than Crimea (going to UN, territorial expansion), which is saying that in those ways Crimea is worse.

But I should have said, in the OP, in some ways worse, which is a little clearer in the way we read. (I think some might have read that as meaning "somehow worse" rather than "in some way worse&quot

[berni_mccoy]

31. Those are your words, not his.

[cthulu2016]

32. Okay, in His words then...

But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory, nor did we grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people, and a fully sovereign Iraqi state could make decisions about its own future.

That is a statement that US actions vis-a-vis Iraq were morally/ethically/legally superior to Putin's annexation of Crimea, in the dimensions detailed.

[berni_mccoy]

33. That is your opinion of the statement.

One does not say something is good or better by starting off with "But even in...". That means, it was a wrong action, not a correct one. And what he said is true, we did not annex or take the resources for ourselves. Iraq is an internationally recognized sovereign state. These are statements of fact that contrast with what Russia has done. They do not say one action is better than the other. Remember the context is that Putin accused our actions in Iraq being no different than his in Crimea. That is a falsehood that Obama is countering with facts.

[cthulu2016]

34. No. It is not my opinion. It's just English.

As you may recall (it's right above) I said that the President said that Russia's actions, vis-a-vis Crimea, were worse than our handling of Iraq in the dimensions specified.

Whether he said Iraq was good, bad, or purple-striped is irrelevant to the statement that he said that Crimea was in some ways worse, in the dimensions he specified.

Which he did.

Say you are having a conversation with someone about another guy you both know who got drunk and hit a baby with a brick.

You friend says, "I am not proud of everything I ever did when I was drunk, but even in my worst drunks I never hit a baby with a brick."

This is a statement that his drunken behavior was, in the dimension specified (treatment of babies), superior to the behavior of the person being discussed.

And the fact that he is not proud of everything he ever did while drunk doesn't change that one bit.

[cali]

26. spot on.

[mike_c]

27. rec'd....

eom

[LittleBlue]

29. That would have been a good statement to make

instead of the logic pretzel he instead decided to use.

[cthulu2016]

35. .

[Gothmog]

36. To use a legal term, what President Obama did was to distinguish the Iraq war from Crimea

Remember that President Obama is a lawyer and a law professor. What President Obama did in his speech was to distinguish the Iraq war from the situation in Crimea. Here is a simplified explanation of this concept. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/distinguish

Distinguish
To set apart as being separate or different; to point out an essential disparity.

To distinguish one case from another case means to show the dissimilarities between the two. It means to prove a case that is cited as applicable to the case currently in dispute is really inapplicable because the two cases are different.

The Iraq war is a very different situation compared to the conduct of Russia in annexing Crimea. In his speech, President Obama did not defend the Iraq war but merely explained why the Iraq war was not relevant to the conduct of Russia in annexing Crimea.

As a lawyer, there is a huge difference here.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

38. I think we're being a little hard on the POTUS here...

Iraq had been an international "problem" for the better part of twenty years. From gassing his own people to invading Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was a bad actor. Iraq has been the subject of thirty UN resolutions (most of them condemnation) during the past 25 years, with about 25 of those coming while Hussein was in power.

Compare that to Crimea, which might have issues with political corruption, but is hardly an regional threat.

And whether it was the "Coalition of the Willing" or the "Coalition of the Coerced," the United States assembled 48 countries to participate in what was a really, really stupid idea. Compare that to Russia, which has assembled a coalition of precisely no one to participate in their really, really stupid idea.

Iraq was a rogue nation, and the United States assembled a coalition to deal with it (leaving aside the wisdom of doing so for the moment). Crimea was an otherwise peaceable part of an otherwise peaceable nation, and it was invaded an annexed by the Russians. Who may or may not be planning to take back all of Ukraine.

There is no comparison between the United States in Iraq and Russia in Crimea. None.

[treestar]

37. He can't be perfect all the time

Maybe your way was better.

At least you are not saying he "defended" the war, which is what so many of the haters jumped onto. And made a shitstorm out of a mere poor choice of words. They attributed intent that was just not there.