Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Obama Scores against McCain

So first came the question posed by Tim Russert and Barack Obama's answer in Tuesday evening's debate in Cleveland, which went like this according to the official transcript:

' MR. RUSSERT: . . . do you reserve a right as American president to go back into Iraq, once you have withdrawn, with sizable troops in order to quell any kind of insurrection or civil war?

SEN. OBAMA: . . . Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad. So that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places. That's part of my argument with respect to Pakistan. . .'


Note that Obama was simply responding to Russert's hypothetical, which assumed that the US was already out of Iraq but that in the aftermath, there was "insurrection" or "civil war." The world that Russert imagined was presumably one in which Iraq had firmed up enough for the US to get out, but then at some later time it developed substantial civil unrest. Russert was presumably attempting to find out if the Democratic candidates were adopting an isolationist position, of getting out and staying out. Obama implied that no, if al-Qaeda came back to Iraq and formed a new base years from now, he would "act" in such a way as to "secure American interests." He is not an isolationist. Note that he was not specific about how exactly he would act.

So then, according to MSNBC, McCain tried to make some hay, admitting he had not actually heard Obama's exact statement.

' “…I am told that Senator Obama made the statement that if Al Qaeda came back to Iraq after he withdraws -- after the American troops are withdrawn -- then he would send military troops back, if Al Qaeda established a military base in Iraq. I have some news: Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda, it's called Al Qaeda in Iraq, and my friends if we left they wouldn't be establishing a base, they wouldn't be establishing a base, they'd be taking a country. And I'm not going to allow that to happen my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to Al Qaeda.” '


But Obama had not said anything of the sort. He was answering a journalist's question about the future. That McCain cannot be bothered to get the exact quote before he puts words in his opponent's mouth and makes a lot of wild, inaccurate charges, doesn't suggest he could be trusted with sensitive diplomacy or other presidential tasks.

Moreover, the allegation that he makes about there being 'al-Qaeda in Iraq' that could well take over the country is part lie and part insanity. The Sunni Arabs are no more than 20% of the Iraqi population. How could a tiny minority from within them take over the whole?

The technical definition of al-Qaeda is operatives who have sworn fealty to Usama bin Laden. There were only a few hundred of them. I doubt whether more than a handful of such individuals are in Iraq.

So there isn't any "al-Qaeda" in Iraq in the technical sense. There are "Excommunicating Holy Warriors" (Takfiri Jihadis), i.e. devotees of political Islam who are violent and willing to deploy terror for political purposes. They declare other Muslims who disagree with them "not Muslims,"-- thus the "excommunicating" bit. But there are only a few hundred foreign fighters. A small minority of Iraqis has associated with them. They don't call themselves 'al-Qaeda in Iraq.' The major such group is "The Islamic State of Iraq." And to say that they have "bases" in Iraq is pretty grandiose. They have some safe houses and try to take and hold neighborhoods, so far with indifferent success.

The idea that this small minority of violent Muslim fundamentalists could take over Iraq is completely crazy. They haven't even been able to keep their toehold in Baghdad-- the Sunnis have been largely ethnically cleansed from the capital by Shiite militias.

So the Shiites would not allow an "al-Qaeda" takeover of Iraq. Neither would the Kurds. Nor would most Sunni Arabs (as in al-Anbar Province, where the Dulaim tribe is at daggers drawn with the Excommunicating Holy Warriors).

Moreover, the neighbors would not allow the radical Sunnis to take over. Iran would sit on its hands while Shiites were massacred in Baghdad? Secular Turkey would allow this development? Baathist Syria? Hashemite Jordan (which played a major role in tracking down and killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi)?

McCain's assertions that "al-Qaeda" has a strong position in Iraq or has any chance of taking over the country if the US leaves are both inaccurate. One is an error, the other is a dark but insubstantial fantasy.

Obama replied:
'“I've got some news for John McCain, that is there was no such thing Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade.

“I've got some news for John McCain. I've got some news for John McCain. He took us into a war, along with George Bush that should have never been authorized, never been waged. They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11 and that would be Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, that is stronger now than at any time since 2001. I've been paying attention John McCain!

“John McCain may like to say that he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell. But so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that's cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars and that I intend to bring to an end so that we can actually start going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and in the hills of Pakistan, like we should have been doing in the first place. That's the news John McCain! '


Obama is correct that there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before Bush overthrew the Iraqi government. I haven't been able to get anyone interested in it, but there is proof positive that the Baath authorities were very scared of al-Qaeda and that when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi showed up in Iraq, they put out an APB on him and branded him dangerous. (Dick Cheney told fairy tales about how Zarqawi was put up in fancy hotels by a solicitous Saddam.)

So to sum up, McCain shot from the hip. He grossly mischaracterized Obama's stance. He hadn't bothered to get the exact quote. Then he made wild and implausible statements about "al-Qaeda" in Iraq, alleging that they are capable of taking over the country. Then Obama let him have it with both barrels.

22 Comments:

At 2:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I intend to...start going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and in the hills of Pakistan

I come from the 'hills of Pakistan', and I can't say I'm delighted.

And this fellow is supposed to be the 'progressive' hope/change for America!

 
At 3:47 AM, Blogger cavjam said...

Sycophancy is a posture the appearance of which i strive to avoid; however, this post (and the previous re Semitic names) is so succinct, informative and needed I just had to doff my lurker's cloak and offer a word of encouragement. Bravo.

 
At 4:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This brings up a question which no one can reply with a straight answer: really, why DID we invade Iraq anyway? It wasn't Al-Qaeda, it wasn't 9-11... People have other theories (oil, dollar, Israeli pressure) but my God! five years into this war and we're only guessing why we invaded another country? What does that say about us and our system of government that such a thing can happen, that no one has been held accountable -- and worse, that we may be about to do it again with respect to Iran?

A recent National Geographic report said that only 23% of American college grads can even find Iraq on a map.

 
At 4:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Obama keeps counterpunching this way, he might eventually debunk the entire Bush-Cheney war mythology, much of which appears to reside in McCain's mind in its original form.

 
At 4:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was at the rally in Columbus where Obama made the comments Juan quotes. The applause he received for those comments were exceeded only by that when he said, "One thing we know for sure, no matter what happens, the name George Bush won't be on the ballot this November."

 
At 5:24 AM, Blogger Christiane said...

Obama gave the wrong answer to Russert : when the frame set by a question is wrong, you don't have to answer to the question. I'm scandalized to see how the whole debate is skwed in the US. Al'Quaeda is nothing more than a new enemy invented by the US militaro-industrial complex and the oil lobby in order to wage permanent wars and control the oil ressources of the world. The Al'Quaeda threat has now succeeded to the communist red devils of the Soviet Union and China. This spinning propaganda is demonizing all the muslim countries who are not aligned with the US policy and rests on abusive generalizations and invented facts in order to frighten the US population and thus justify any wars from which the militaro-industrial complex and the oil lobbies could benefit. It's saddening to sea how this spin is able to pollute the presidential campaign. To such question, the only answer is to deconstruct the question, to show that it is absurd, that it derives from propaganda, not from facts. The militaro-industrial complex and oil lobbies have been able to postpone the real debate (aka : what is the place and role of the US in the world) to a false one (aka : how can the US defend itself from a non existing threat). I find it scandalous that the whole political arena seems dominated by a the wrong question and that a candidate like Obama, who pretends to offer a change isn't able to refuse to be put in such false delemnas.

It is also saddening to see that he is ready for other interventions in other countries. The problem the US has with the rest of the world comes from their this assumed toughness and roughness, from the US inconditional use of force, from their despise for international treaties and for the UN chart. Obama offered a very deceiving answer, which shows that he won't bring the change needed to the US foreign policy.

 
At 7:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd like to hear Obama hit the theme that the unnecessary war in Iraq just diverts resources and energy from the main threat emanating from the Pakistan tribal areas, North Africa, Europe, etc.

And I wish Obama would ask McCain just what the implications of his stay in Iraq are for combat tours. Will we be requiring our soldiers to do 7 or 8 tours there?

 
At 7:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prof. Cole,

Every Informed Comment reader should get across the piece entitled the 6 trillion dollar war in today's G2 section of the Guardian. URL is
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/iraq.afghanistan

It's a piece about the Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and his new book.

It's important because of 1) the degree of granularity and 2) the way it "makes connections".

A quick example or two. Every American household is forking out $138 a month toward the current operating costs of the war. Could most Americans use an extra 35 bucks a week in their pocket? I think so.

Haliburton - Cheney's little number - has racked up 19.3 billion dollars in single source contracts for work in Iraq.

Three trillion - half of what this abomination has cost - could have fixed social security for fifty years. Something that would have benefited every single American.

Basically, that wretched fool - led by the nose by people who have other axes to grind - has trashed the world. Especially Iraq and the United States. But ultimately the world - because of the way things "connect up". His "stewardship" or "leadership" - and needless to say, the words derive their point from the want of application - is essentially an extremely destructive frat party - an appallingly stupid, unutterably cruel and vile five-year-long "binge" leveraged to the national and international level.

The which he'll walk away from - expecting somebody else to clean the mess up - exactly as he would have walked away from a drunken spree of a frat party trashing orgy.

He's pissed in everybody's soup. And we've drunk it.

 
At 7:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Occupying Iraq is not only costly and detrimental to both Iraq and the US. It is also a privilege the Americans have to earn, which is getting harder everyday.

The GreenZone Iraqis want to have a treaty whereby the USA keeps them in power. The Americans have refused saying that Congress would not agree. The Iraqis are adamant so they may "go Persian" to get Iran to prop them up instead, and goodbye USA.

The deal with the Sunnis was on the basis that defeating al-Qaeda will end the need for US presence. Now the Americans are talking about staying for 100 years, so the deal may well be off.

The Iranians and Syrians have been somewhat cooperative also on the basis that stability would lead to the end of the occupation. There are already signs that Iran has now ended its limited cooperation.

The self-cenered Americans do not see any of that, but their staff in Iraq do. The ambassador either hits the roof when the politicians talk about 100 years, or sees it as a welcome unintended derailing of the plans to stay which he doesn't like anyway.

 
At 9:23 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

Sen. McCain's comment is typical of war supporters who require distraction and dissembling in order to further justify this war. What is most egregious, is most now use the very chaos created by this illegal invasion to justify our continued occupation. The GOP Senate wants to debate "improvements" in Iraq. Will Sen. McCain return to the Senate floor to participate? Unlikely.

The notion of "Al Qaeda" taking over Iraq is so palpably absurd that, quote Pat Buchanan's comment about the "hating our freedoms" argument, it insults the intelligence of a second grader. Had AQ been in Iraq or Hussein gotten hold of OBL, he would have delivered him to the US with a big red bow as his "get out of jail free" card. Palpably absurd.

The "conservative movement" has degenerated into an imperialist party willing to sacrifice all traditional principle in furtherance of a destructive and misguided war. John McCain is (remarkably, even more than Guiliani) the distilled version of this lunacy.

If lies like this are the best Sen . McCain can do against Sen. Obama, that, combined with his self-professed disinterest in economic matters and unblinking support for destructive trade policies, will ensure a victory for Sen. Obama in the Fall. This arch-conservative at least, isn't trouble by that prospect.

 
At 10:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This whole exchange is based upon the tacit acceptance, unfortunately even by Professor Cole, that the US president is the US (not military) Commander-in-Chief, the decider, making the critical decisions on going to war.

That idea is wrong. That idea is unconstitutional.

It seems that whomever becomes president the American people are doomed to be subjects of a dictator. As Bush has stated: "While I appreciate receiving that [congressional] support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021016-11.html


The die has been cast. Every US president, apparently, will be our commander-in-chief. Bow low, subjects.

 
At 11:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama needs to hit McCain hard about THE BUSH REGIME paying off the Sunnis to NOT ATTACK American Troops. That is why the violence has subsided in Iraq. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SURGE!!!!!
Also, what about the million of $ that came up missing (An airplane carrying $20 million in $100 bills vanished) and the millions that were to help rebuild Iraq cannot be found. This all went to the Sunnis and al-Qaeda as payoff.
When the $ stops, the blood of American troops will again start flowing and the dead arriving quietly back home barred from public view.
McCain said he cannot win unless the "surge" is a success, and Bush will ensure that by keep paying off the terrorists to stay calm until after the elections to make it appear the "surege" is working.

 
At 12:14 PM, Blogger Dancewater said...

"And this fellow is supposed to be the 'progressive' hope/change for America!"

He is not.

As to why we invaded and occupied Iraq:

Contrary to how President George W. Bush has tried to justify the Iraq war in the past, he has now . . . admitted that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was aimed primarily at seizing predominant influence over its oil by establishing permanent . . . military bases. He made this transparently clear by adding a signing statement to the defense appropriation bill, indicating that he would not be bound by the law’s prohibition against expending funds: “(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq,” or “(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.” -- Ray McGovern


I am personally spending way more than $35 a week to fight this war through non-violent resistance.

Permits, films, printing, etc, all cost money. I give a sizeable chunk to charities helping Iraqi refugees and to the Vets for Peace Iraq Water Project.

 
At 12:22 PM, Blogger sherm said...

I second Christiane. The term "American interests", as now used in the body politic, is a term of imperialism. And Obama uses it freely in this context.

"American interests" basically represents the perceived need to sustain our standard of living and our consumption habits.

The other countries in the world have there own interests but these must be subordinated to "American interests". For example: Any Saudi that aspires to democracy will have to understand that its in "American interests" to sustain the Kingdom because we need politically reliable control over the oil. And if it take military support to do so, so be it.

China is a threat because "China's interests" may compete with our interests. China's energy consumption is not seen as a legitimate need for the function of Chinese society. It is seen as an obstacle to "American interests", thus mandating confrontation.

Slightly changing the subject, the notion of us going back into Iraq to suppress a civil war or eliminate a terrorist gang is hilarious. We've been in Iraq almost five years and Afghanistan six, with almost nothing to show for it. The idea that we can pop back in and quickly tidy things up defies the past history of our interventions (Grenada and Panama don't count). Get out and stay out!

Obama, McCain, Clinton, Bush, et al are really the isolationists. They don't want to engage the world as it is. They want to mold the world to their liking, using military force if necessary. The invasion of Iraq was as isolationist as you can get.

 
At 3:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama NEEDS to say:

"John McCain wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the Gates of Hell but he doesn't have a clue what to do if Osama decides to stay in Northwest Pakistan."

 
At 5:05 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

I thought time tables were a bad thing ... . http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/world/africa/29gates.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

 
At 6:14 PM, Blogger bluegreygreen said...

The problem, once McCain did his typical lying-Republican routine, is that Obama legitimizes the "al Qaeda in Iraq" framing, by saying, "there wasn't AQI before Bush invaded". It's an applause line, but it continues the disinformation.

Of course, no politician will stand up and say, "there IS no AQI, in the sense of an international terrorist organization".

No one will say it. Lots of people know it. The media won't really say it yet either. They have their own reasons - sensationalism, he said/she said frames, owner/editor/writers personal ideological beliefs.

 
At 6:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The bottom line, is that Obama has firmly committed himself to the imperial notion that the US has the right to intervene anywhere it wants anytime it wants, all in the name of our "interests", which is ALWAYS code for corporate interests. His response to Russert reflected this.

In other words, his policy is no different from GOP policy and he is at least just as likely to lead us into misguided wars.

What's more, Clinton is right that ever since he has been in the Senate, he has supported the occupation along with many of the other Dems, spitting in the face of the notion of popular sovereignty, consider that neither the population of the US nor the population of Iraq wants those troops there.

Juan, you go ahead and split hairs as some kind of self-appointed wedge leader for Obama. But it's too bad you choose to waste your well earned respect on such a worthless and perverse cause, ie. on a quisling.

 
At 6:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I too say bravo to fanonite. The sycophancy I'm sick of is the Obama-worship that seems to have gripped so-called "progressives" in America and Europe.

 
At 7:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

(1) Yes, Christane. And furthermore, there is unfortunately no Santa Claus either.

(2) Andrew on the existence or nonexistence of al-Qá‘ida is trickier to answer, but as it happens there was a scribble by David Ignatius in this morning's Washington Post that included the following:

These people are genuinely dangerous ... and they must be captured or killed. But they do not pose an existential threat to America, much less a "clash of civilizations."

Maybe that's not "The media really saying it yet," but I detect at least a small step here in the general direction of courage and prudence.

Happy days.

 
At 11:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Professor Cole, am I missing something or is the Pakistani press carefully not mentioning the Predator strike by the US?

--Charles of MercuryRising
www.phoenixwoman.wordpress.com

 
At 3:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am also detect a bit small step here about the guidance to encourage each and everyone of us.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home