In July 2007 when he was still frantically courting the far left, Barack Obama flatly declared that genocide wouldn't be a good enough reason to keep American troops in Iraq:
SUNAPEE, N.H. - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
"Well, look, 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 300,000 troops in the Congo right now - where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife - which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.
With all the scrubbing and airbrushing that's been going on at the Obama campaign and its website, the fact that he has flip-flopped on genocide has been sadly overlooked. That's right - the presumptive Democratic nominee now opposes genocide! According to his website's new and improved 16 month withdrawal plan:
"Obama would also work with Iraqi authorities and the international community to hold the perpetrators of potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide accountable. He would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq."
I for one applaud this flip-flop, although I lament the ongoing straddle. Note carefully how the longtime community organizer is still trying to occupy both sides of the issue. He reserves the right to intervene militarily to interrupt a genocide, but he doesn't say he will intervene militarily. Which way would President Obama decide? Candidate Obama is unwilling to say.
So maybe calling the latest Obama incarnation "anti-genocide" represents a premature celebration. And I'm sure Obama's not-quite muscular phrasing of "reserving the right to intervene" (with our international partners!) provides little comfort to any nervous Sunnis in Iraq. Still, Obama's new position is far more responsible than his old one.
Which raises an interesting exit question - was he really as indifferent to genocide as he made it seem a year ago?
