Obama's second thoughts
President Obama's first position on releasing more photos of detainee abuse was based on principle.
His second is prompted by practicalities.
Release will unleash new waves of anti-American anger in Iraq and Afghanistan and put U.S. troops in greater danger.
I don't know if the administration will prevail against the ACLU's legal action aimed at gaining release. I don't know if Obama will stick with his latest stand.
I do know that, as commander-in-chief, he should not subject the troops to unnecessary harm.
This is an important step for Obama, who this time has given a higher priority to security concerns than to his oft-stated commitment to openness and what he calls American values.
Is he right? From a legal standpoint, it may be the Supreme Court that decides. If it orders release of the photos, the administration must comply.
From a policy standpoint, I think so. The earlier release of Abu Ghraib photos provoked anti-American violence. A repeat likely will do the same, possibly set back progress toward peace in Iraq, and worsen conditions in Afghanistan.
Adhering to principles has consequences. When the fallout can cost American lives, those consequences may be too great to accept.
Comments (8)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
If Obama has trouble "sticking to his guns" on his second stance, he'll just take a third stance, and really, really try to stick to it.
If that doesn't work, he'll take a fourth stand, and really, really try to stick to it.
If that doesn't work.....Well, you get the picture.
Obama's "stands" are dictated by political winds, not by moral or ethical fortitude.
Posted on May 14, 2009 9:59 AM
You agree it's better he switch to a correct position than to hold on to a bad one?
His predecessor had trouble with that, in my recollection.
Posted on May 14, 2009 10:51 AM
"Good" position or "bad" position is a matter of perspective.
I have respect for a man who acts on his principles; I don't believe Obama has any. He's a Clintonian president.
Posted on May 14, 2009 11:36 AM
So, no matter what position he takes on any issue, you'll disagree with it?
If so, your only principle is to be against Obama.
(I'm probably misreading you here; I hope so.)
Posted on May 14, 2009 11:46 AM
Why does protecting American interests and soldiers get downgraded from a "principle" to a mere "practicality"? Why not view promises pitched toward blame-America-first types (release the photos, pull out of Iraq ASAP, close G Bay, etc.) as practical, political moves geared toward solidifying a base?
Posted on May 14, 2009 12:40 PM
Adhering to principles has consequences. When the fallout can cost American lives, those consequences may be too great to accept.* Doug
No doubt this is the same political establishment bunch at the end of WW2, who said the releasing of the Holocaust Death Camps pictures would hurt the rebuilding of war torn Germany.
Posted on May 14, 2009 12:43 PM
I use practical in the sense that it's a recognition of consequences: Are you willing to pay the cost of sticking to your principles?
A principle may be good or bad.
Posted on May 14, 2009 12:54 PM
I think you've got it exactly backward: Obama's principle has always been to govern as a reasonable extension of Bush (no immediate pullout, no closing Gitmo, no pictures, tribunals OK, etc.), but recognized that the cost of saying so was too steep. Hence, the campaign Obama is the practical one.
Posted on May 17, 2009 12:42 AM