Niall Ferguson, who is not in any way, shape or form, a fan of the war in Iraq, has a devastating column in the Telegraph about Barack Obama's "stance" on the war. It is blistering.
Obama's anti-war stance is widely seen as his trump card as he goes head to head with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Despite her best efforts, Sen Clinton finds herself in John Kerry territory, having originally voted for the war, but now opposing it. Should Obama win this contest, his supporters reason, he would also be well placed to beat any of the Republican front-runners. John McCain is seen as particularly vulnerable on Iraq. Not only did he support the war; he has also backed President Bush's latest attempt to salvage the situation with a "surge" of extra troops.
Yet conventional wisdom on presidential races at this early stage nearly always turns out to be wrong. Obama's stance on Iraq may yet prove to be his biggest vulnerability -just as McCain's consistency, based on years of hard-won military and political experience, might just be his biggest strength.
Take a look at Obama's arguments for a speedy US withdrawal. Speaking on the Senate floor on January 30, he asserted that "redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve\u2026 political settlement between its warring factions".
The key is "to give Iraqis their country back", since "no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war". He repeated these words when he announced that he was running for the presidency last weekend.
But Obama's claim that an American withdrawal would somehow "pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace" is a fraud.
On the contrary, an American withdrawal is much more likely to lead to an escalation of the conflict that is tearing Iraq apart. In a devastating paper for the Brookings Institution, Daniel L Byman and Kenneth M Pollack have pointed out that, given the vast potential for violence that exists in the Middle East, we ain't seen nothin' yet.
"The only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into a Lebanon- or Bosnia-like maelstrom," they argue, "is 135,000 American troops." I would go further. Iraq has already matched the level of violence witnessed in the Lebanese and Bosnian civil wars. And it could get much, much worse. If the US pulls out, as Obama recommends, Byman and Pollack predict "a humanitarian nightmare" in which we should expect "hundreds of thousands (conceivably even millions) of people to die". There could also be huge economic fallout, with oil prices surging above $100 a barrel as the war spilled into neighbouring countries.
It is past time to make the current crop of politicians face the results of their current posturing. It will be a flat out genocide that results from a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. So if a politician is arguing for that withdrawal, they should acknowledge that their personal policies will result in many thousands of people dying. They should admit that the genocide will occur and that they are perfectly ok with that.
Otherwise, they are pandering and poll-chasing.
Obama calls for urgent intervention in Darfur but an even more urgent withdrawal from Iraq. He's decided, apparently, which genocide he's ok with. Ferguson calls him out on it. So should every American. Call your Representatives and ask if they are ok with genocide in Iraq. Ask them how they stand on that issue. Because it matter. A lot.
Brookings?? That paleo-neo-con right-wing Bush-puppet think tank? Who could possibly take anything they say as truthful?
Wait–maybe I have them misidentified. Lemme get back to you on this.