Better Wording

I will quote at length from the New Yorker September 17 article entitled “Planning for Defeat,” by George Packer. The article (obviously) discusses what Bush should do in Iraq in the next few months; this section focuses on Bush’s argument that withdrawal from Iraq could result in genocide, and Barack Obama’s response to that.

Bush recently raised the spectre of genocide, in a speech suggesting that a withdrawal from Iraq could lead to killing on the level of Cambodia after the Vietnam War. Many Democrats were skeptical. On the campaign trail, Barack Obama said, “If that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have the hundred thousand troops in the Congo right now–where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife–which we haven’t done. We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done.” The argument is shallow: by Obama’s reasoning, America doesn’t have an obligation to prevent large-scale massacres in a country it invaded and occupied, but it does have an obligation not to be hypocritical about it.

A few comments. Packer’s commentary is reasonable, given what literally came out of Obama’s mouth. But Obama is obviously not saying that we should allow a genocide inside Iraq simply to maintain consistency with our policy in Sudan, the Congo, or elsewhere. Packer I’m sure realizes this.

I agree with Packer, but I think his point is irrelevant. What I would assume Obama meant was the following: “Even though a genocide in Iraq would be a tragedy, we simply cannot deploy 100k+ American troops unless there are American strategic interests at stake.” Now I didn’t really word that in a way that would make anyone vote me into the American Presidency, but I think any wording directly conveying that idea would be less punchy and effective than Obama’s original response–even if it is, under very close examination, “shallow.”