13 March 2007
More on Gore, Iraq
I don't have time for links but wanted to give a quick update on my perceptions regarding Al Gore entering the presidential race. I still think he will; however, some of his critics have raised what I'll admit is a relevant point: Al Gore's view on Iraq. Yes, back in 2002, when it was certainly not "cool" and at times labeled "treasonous," Al Gore spoke out against the BushCo plan for invading Iraq. His primary objection to the invasion was not one along the lines of the Dennis Kucinich "Let's build a Department of Peace Instead" approach. Gore framed his own objections in a national security context: Afghanistan is far from a finished job and we simply can't abandon that endeavor. Furthermore, Gore pointed out that Bush would go into Iraq, take out Saddam, and then leave a huge mess behind that would cause even more problems. Prescient, certainly, but what else would you expect from a man who had served several terms in the Senate and 8 years as Vice President (during which he probably made more national security decisions for the country than his boss did).
The point here is that Gore in 2002 was already worrying about the consequences of making war in Iraq and then abandoning its people. Which brings us to the question at hand: what would Al Gore do in Iraq now? For a man who has had years and years of White House war room realism welded onto an idealistic soul, it would be a torturous issue. Certainly he does not want the United States to be in Iraq, something that now the vast majority of the American public agrees with him on. I think it's also likely that he does not want to abandon the Iraqi government, in what many might see as a "throwing them to the wolves" scenario. And for a man with a cause (global warming) and, above that, a new found popular relevance (not to mention, lots of new money), would seeking the White House and inheriting all of these problems really be a desirable mission?
His critics see someone who will probably back down from this challenge. I, on the other hand, do not. I believe Gore has already established himself as one of the greatest patriots our modern country has known. His tireless dedication to public service cannot be questioned. His ability to see "further down the road" than his peers has been consistently noted (for all the jokes about inventing the internet, without a doubt Gore did more to make it a reality than any other public servant). His diplomatic skill is second to none and would be essential for getting the entire region together for action on Iraq. Domestically, Gore would have to deal with negotiating a course that would be both acceptable to the anti-war majority and those who raise rightful concerns about leaving behind a terrorist hotbed. I have no idea how I would approach such a political minefield myself, but then again, I'm not the guy who single-handedly tackled global warming.
The point here is that Gore in 2002 was already worrying about the consequences of making war in Iraq and then abandoning its people. Which brings us to the question at hand: what would Al Gore do in Iraq now? For a man who has had years and years of White House war room realism welded onto an idealistic soul, it would be a torturous issue. Certainly he does not want the United States to be in Iraq, something that now the vast majority of the American public agrees with him on. I think it's also likely that he does not want to abandon the Iraqi government, in what many might see as a "throwing them to the wolves" scenario. And for a man with a cause (global warming) and, above that, a new found popular relevance (not to mention, lots of new money), would seeking the White House and inheriting all of these problems really be a desirable mission?
His critics see someone who will probably back down from this challenge. I, on the other hand, do not. I believe Gore has already established himself as one of the greatest patriots our modern country has known. His tireless dedication to public service cannot be questioned. His ability to see "further down the road" than his peers has been consistently noted (for all the jokes about inventing the internet, without a doubt Gore did more to make it a reality than any other public servant). His diplomatic skill is second to none and would be essential for getting the entire region together for action on Iraq. Domestically, Gore would have to deal with negotiating a course that would be both acceptable to the anti-war majority and those who raise rightful concerns about leaving behind a terrorist hotbed. I have no idea how I would approach such a political minefield myself, but then again, I'm not the guy who single-handedly tackled global warming.
Labels: al gore
¶ 8:27 AM
