Paul Krugman has penned a four-thousand-word ode to Obama for Rolling Stone titled “In Defense of Obama,” in which he argues that Obama “has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history.” But, sandwiched between praise for Obamacare and climate policy, there’s one topic on which Krugman goes curiously silent.
In the section headed “National Security,” Krugman admits that Obama has been a disappointment to the many liberals who backed him over Hillary because of his opposition to the Iraq War.
As president, Obama has bombed seven countries, and is now overseeing a frantic re-escalation of American action in both Iraq and Syria. Krugman notes that his administration “never even considered going after the deceptions that took us to Baghdad” and has been “quite willing to bomb people considered threatening to U.S. interests. And he has defended the prerogatives of the NSA and the surveillance state in general.”
Krugman’s response? Suddenly he’s all blushing modesty: “Could and should he have been different? The truth is that I have no special expertise here,” he begins.
And although “as an ordinary concerned citizen” he worries about the precedent of leaving potential war crimes uninvestigated, far be it from Paul Krugman to make a judgment about foreign policy!
In honor of this touching self-effacement, here’s a short round-up of some of the most humble declarations Krugman has made about foreign policy in the past:
2. In 2005, he announced that “Leading the nation wrongfully into war strikes at the heart of democracy,” and called it “an unprecedented abuse of power” and “a military and moral quagmire.”
3. In 2006, he patted himself on the back for “the suspicion many of us had, which turned out to be correct, that the administration’s case for war was fraudulent” and said the Bush administration’s belief in “shock and awe” “was, all too obviously, a childish fantasy.”
4. Last year he proclaimed that the war “left America weaker, not stronger, and ended up creating an Iraqi regime that is closer to Tehran than it is to Washington.”
5. In 2003, he single-handedly determined the Bush team “wrong on all counts” about the reception their war would receive.
And of course, self-deprecating caveats aside, Krugman has no problem with tacking on a jab at war-mongering Republicans to the end of his comments: “What I would say is that even if Obama is just an ordinary president on national security issues, that’s a huge improvement over what came before and what we would have had if John McCain or Mitt Romney had won.”
A sincere admission of ignorance would be welcome from Krugman—if only it were in any way believable, rather than shameless kowtowing to the administration.
