Obama on Iraq, October 2002

Conservatives keep describing Barack Obama as a far leftist. A good starting point for a discussion aimed at determining the truth of that assertion is a speech that Obama, then an Illinois state senator, gave at an anti-war rally in Chicago on October 2002. As I have lamented many times, a hallmark of the year-long debate leading up to the invasion of Iraq was the viciousness, stupidity, and irrelevance of most of the arguments made by the anti-war left and the anti-war right. For the most part the anti-war side did not discuss, in the manner of a loyal opposition, the pros and cons of the war; they simply smeared the Bush team as a sinister and treasonous force—not exactly helpful arguments for those of us who were trying to figure out if we supported the invasion or not.

Compared to the general run of the anti-war side, Obama’s speech is on a high level. There are no cheap shots, no “This is all about Israel, oil, and outdoing Daddy.” Rather than stirring up contempt for Bush and the neocons, as most of the anti-war side did, Obama in this speech explains why he thinks that this war is not a prudent war and not in the national interest. He makes arguments I disagree with, such as his notion that Hussein represented no threat that could not be easily contained. He also makes prescient arguments that were, tragically, barely discussed (including by me) during the debate leading up to the invasion, such as how we would ever get to leave Iraq once we had occupied it.

Prior to the war I wrote at VFR that the neocons were highly rational concerning the threat of WMDs and the need to use force to remove the threat, and that they were highly irrational in their belief that the Muslim world could be democratized. On balance I would have to say that Obama in this speech seems more rational than the neocons. True, he understates the WMD threat (as we understood it to be at the time), but in his grasp of the unintended horrible problems that would ensue from an Iraq occupation he is more thoughtful and more attentive to America’s true interests than the neocons. This is not the speech of a leftist or an America-hater; it is the speech of an intelligent man.

I emphasize, as I have before, that this is not an endorsement of Obama. It is part of a process of learning about his record in order to form an opinion about him.

Here is the speech:

Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq
October 26, 2002

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 fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don’t oppose all wars. After September 11, 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 tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. 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 armchair, 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…. 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…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 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 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.

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…we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation 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.

- end of initial entry -

Carl Simpson writes:

As much as I dislike and distrust the man, I must admit his 2002 speech represents a far more rational criticism of the war than the frothing rhetoric emanating from nearly all the Democrats at the time. Apart from some standard liberal nonsense implying that the root causes of jihad are a result of a lack of opportunity in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia (admittedly a minor point in the overall critique) there’s nothing much to criticize here.

From what I know of his positions, there would be precious little difference between the policies of an Obama administration and a Giuliani one.

David H. writes:

Your wrote:

“Conservatives keep describing Barack Obama as a far leftist. A good starting point for a discussion aimed at determining the truth of that assertion is a speech that Obama, then an Illinois state senator, gave at an anti-war rally in Chicago on October 2002.”

I believe his record on domestic concerns like abortion are a better starting point. That’s enough truth to convince me. Neocons have fallen in love with Lieberman, even though he is quite left of center, because of his support for the insane Bush project; even if Obama or Hillary or any other leftist were against the war for all the right reasons, I would still give that less weight in determining their spot on the political spectrum than support for abortion, immigration, feminism and the continued destruction of America in specific, the West in general. I do believe a general loathing of Bush will lead many non-leftists to vote for a candidate like Obama, and although the Republican might not be any better (McCain, for example; in that case it will be a write-in for me), the people will get exactly what they ask for.

Also you wrote:

“I emphasize, as I have before, that this is not an endorsement of Obama. It is part of a process of learning about his record in order to form an opinion about him.”

I’m thankful it’s not; again, even if a candidate is absolutely perfect in every way, support of partial birth abortion—whether overt or by method of a “present” vote—is a deal killer for me. There can be no exception; the procedure is infanticide and any but the most strenuous objection is both a revealing lack of humanity and a loathsome indifference to the sanctity of life.

PS—Incidentally I have never, and do not, describe myself as a conservative; for much of my adult life the definition has been dictated by neocons and other democracy-junkies, which I have never agreed with.

John D. writes:

David H. writes:

“Incidentally I have never, and do not, describe myself as a conservative; for much of my adult life the definition has been dictated by neocons and other democracy-junkies, which I have never agreed with.”

I must take exception to the overall implications of this statement and its consequences. David H. seems to be caving in to the definition of conservatism that is projected by the actions of those (neocons and other democracy-junkies) who are not conservative in the truest sense of its definition. How are we to ever reject the current direction of true conservatism if we allow conservatism’s terms to be dictated by those who seek to change its meaning and purpose? Although David H. is free to describe himself in any terms he feels appropriate, he himself is doing conservatism an injustice by allowing (what are essentially) non-conservatives to dictate conservatism’s terms. This would be like ceasing to call myself a member of the white race if Obama started calling himself White instead of Black.

We must fight the incompatibilities in their definition by pointing out their misapplications if we wish to uphold conservatism’s proper values.

Larry G. writes:

Obama’s reasons for opposing the war, contained in paragraph four, are ludicrous. By blaming Perle and Wolfowitz he is implying the war was fought for Israel. Then he blames Karl Rove and says the war was fought to “distract us” from the economy. If there was any evidence for any of this then all those people, and the President himself, would have been brought up on criminal charges. But there is no such evidence.

In paragraph six he ignores the fact that Saddam had already attacked two of his neighbors, occupied one, and threatened a third, and was only contained by our constant and expensive military efforts that had by that point continued for over ten years. That effort at containment, along with the sanctions being undermined by France and Russia, were the subject of constant international complaint. UN Weapons inspectors had been ejected years before, so there was no reliable intelligence on WMD, but no reason to believe they had abandoned their efforts to develop them. He then suggests that Saddam will just fade away if we do nothing, ignoring his two psychopathic sons groomed to continue the dynasty.

He then goes on to suggest we reform the Muslim Middle East: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, even Pakistan—just not Iraq. This is the typical leftist ploy of saying that the proper thing to do is anything other than the thing you have decided to do. But reforming the Muslim Middle East was one of the themes put forth by Perle and Wolfowitz, who he condemned earlier in the speech.

He does suggest a couple of steps we could take, such as “coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism,” that were already being done by the administration, until they were exposed by the New York Times.

Altogether I don’t find this speech to be thoughtful at all. It’s confused, “blame the Jews,” “Bush lied,” liberal boilerplate for the anti-war crowd that could have been given by Maxine Waters.

LA replies:

It seems to me the reference to Perle’s and Wolfowitz’s “ideological agenda” is clearly to Muslim democratization, not to Israel. Defending Israel would not be described as an “ideological agenda.” Larry G. is jumping to the unwarranted conclusion that Obama’s criticism of advisors with Jewish names means he’s making Israel the issue, but there’s no internal evidence of that in Obama’s speech.

I agree that the “Rove wants to distract us” comment is a cheap shot, standard leftist Democratic rhetoric.

I agree with what Larry says in his second paragraph; I briefly make the same point in the original entry. However, while Obama’s argument here is wrong, it’s not irrational. By contrast, the neocons’ belief that the Muslim world could be democratized, their comparisons of Iraq to Germany and Japan, were so far off the mark as to be irrational. That is why I say that on balance, Obama is more rational than the neocons.

I agree that Obama’s call to remove oppression from the mideast sounds like a re-statement of what Perle and Wolfowitz want to do. Hard to know what Obama meant by that.

However I don’t see anything here of the “Bush lied,” and “Blame the Jews” variety. I think Larry is seeing something that is not here.

Finally, doesn’t Larry give Obama credit for making the key point that once we occupied Iraq we would have no decent way to leave?

Roger C. writes:

When I read the article with Obama’s 2002 remarks concerning the war in Iraq, this is the impression that hits me.

Obama is not a black man. His voice, his cadence, his use of language is that of a white man. Look at his face—what do you see? A black man? Look carefully at the eyes, the nose, the chin—it is the profile of a white man. And he is genetically part white. His whole psychology, language, demeanor, conduct … is white. He is NOT in the same dimension as MLK Jr. or Jesse Jackson or Ron Dellums, etc.

He is more white than Hillary Clinton who had to affect a silly southern accent in her speech at the civil rights memorials in Alabama last week.

As a white man, I do not consider Obama a black man. he sounds more like me than Hillary does!

David H. writes:

In response to John D., there are reasons that I do not call myself conservative, none of them the result of “caving” or accepting the mainstream (and incorrect) definition of a word. I consider, and openly call myself, on the “right”, or right-wing if you will (there is absolutely no shame in that term). I can be conservative. I could also be radical, depending on the circumstances.

Why I mention the “conservative” embracing of democracy-for-all, is that for all of my life, it is the conservatives, not the left, who have championed democracy and capitalism as a vehicle of global liberation. In many cases, if not most, this was a very good-intentioned creed, but we now see the disastrous implications of it in practice. It requires great loss of American life (soldiers) and wealth to implement, with uncertain or even counterproductive results (e.g. the election of Hamas).

The reason I broached the subject, was that I myself took exception to the line “Conservatives keep describing Barack Obama as a far leftist. A good starting point for a discussion aimed at determining the truth of that assertion is a speech that Obama, then an Illinois state senator, gave at an anti-war rally in Chicago on October 2002….” Since I had just thoroughly criticized him, it was my impression that I was included in that group. I was and am against the Bush democracy project and I am glad that Mr. Obama is as well. But my judgment of him is not based on his anti-Iraq War record, as you can see in my other writings.

LA replies:

When I spoke of conservatives criticizing Obama as far leftist, I was not in fact thinking of universal democracy-type conservatives, I was thinking of the commenters at this website. And while my preferred term for my own position is traditionalist rather than conservative, for convenience stake in ordinary speech I accede to the conventional use of the word according to which neocons, paleocons, trad cons, mainstream cons, standard-issue cons, are all “conservative,” though obviously I’m often criticizing that designation when it comes to the neocons and the mainstream cons.

Larry G. replies:

“It seems to me the reference to Perle’s and Wolfowitz’s ‘ideological agenda’ is clearly to Muslim democratization, not to Israel.”

So he’s a universalist liberal who does not believe Muslims are capable of democracy? He says later on, “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 … .” That sounds like democratization, or something very much like it. And if he supports Muslim democratization, that isn’t the reason he’s blaming the war on Perle and Wolfowitz.

“Finally, doesn’t Larry give Obama credit for making the key point that once we occupied Iraq we would have no decent way to leave?”

I assume you are referring to the section that begins: “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 think you’re reading more into it than is there. All it really says is that we don’t know what will happen after we invade. That’s true but shows no great insight. The rest is the standard argument that if we kill terrorists then ten more will take their place, the “Arab street” will erupt, etc.

I really think he is hitting all the standard anti-war hot buttons—he even has a “war for oil” reference toward the end. He just is doing it in an oblique way. Reading this speech made me feel less inclined toward Obama, not more.

LA replies:

I don’t know what Obama meant by ending oppression. It may just be blather. But Larry G. is certainly correct that Obama seems to be contradicting himself in criticizing the (democratist) ideology of Perle and Wolfowitz, while calling for the U.S. to help end oppression in Muslim countries.

As for Obama’s, “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 must say there is more reason in this than in ten volumes of neocon nonsense about our ability to democratize the Muslim world.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 11, 2007 01:42 AM | Send