Iraq, Part Two

Barack Obama could not vote on the resolution to use force against Iraq because he was not a United States Senator at the time - he was an Illinois Senator. However, he did speak out against the war on Iraq. On October 2, 2002 (the same day and hour that President Bush and Congress announced their agreement on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War, but over a week before it was passed by either body of Congress), Obama delivered this speech:

"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, 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 saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, 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 a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. 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 arm-chair, 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. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. 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, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military 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 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 today. 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 the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation 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 does not 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.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not  - we will not -  travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."

While Barack Obama does not have the extensive experience of John McCain in international affairs, he has a world view that makes more sense than the one espoused by John McCain, who seemingly wants to follow in the footsteps of President Bush. The current president branded countries as evil and warned governments that they were either with us or against us. This approach made no sense then, and it certainly doesn't apply now. Unless there is a great antagonist that is a threat to all countries and the world, there will never be pure adversaries nor allies.

The narrow-minded view of our current President led him to make the unpopular and faulty decisions he has made over the last eight years. If you don't believe that the world opinion of the United States is declining precipitously, look at the latest worldwide opinion polls. According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, only 56% of the British, considered to be our greatest ally, have a favourable opinion of the United States, down from 83% in 1999. The good news is that the British still have a higher opinion of America than the Iranians; the bad news is that it's only 4%. The British also see the U.S. occupation of Iraq as a bigger threat to world peace than either Iran or North Korea. Moreover, only 38% of Germans surveyed and 19% of Canadians surveyed believe that the current U.S. foreign policy considers others. Our single-minded agenda and abuse of our relationships has caused a larger threat to our national security than it was prior to our invasion of Iraq.

Five months prior the Cuban Missile Crisis, John F. Kennedy sat down with Nikita Khruschev (without the preconditions McCain claimed last Friday that were an absolute necessity) to speak about disarmament. Although there was no resolution achieved during this summit, Kennedy acquired knowledge and gained some insight that allowed him to stay cool and make the correct decision during the largest nuclear crisis in the history of the world. Kennedy spent those thirteen days meeting with all of his advisers and making sure all options were covered, similar to the manner that Obama has handled this recent economic crisis. Once the threat was verified, Kennedy chose the option that he felt had a better chance ending in peace, the blockade, although it was the least popular course of action. Ted Sorensen, Kennedy adviser and speechwriter, wrote in his biography "...a president who refrains from going to war may actually be showing more courage than one who follows the more politically popular course and launches military combat."

That kind of courage is absent from the White House now. That type of courage and intelligence will be absent for another four years if John McCain wins this upcoming election. We cannot allow that kind of courage to be overlooked when we have the opportunity to elect a leader who possesses it. Barack Obama has the courage and intelligence we need and Barack Obama is ready to lead in this world right now.