Obama: Genocide Fears In Iraq Not Good Reason To Stay

Barack Obama may be right, using the military to solve humanitarian problems may be a poor use of resources. But based on these comments, one has to wonder, "What would Obama do if he were sitting in the Oval Office?

"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.

Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, said it's likely there would be increased bloodshed if U.S. forces left Iraq.

"Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis," Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. "There's no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there."

But our presence in Iraq, while it has humanitarian overtones, is really about national and world security.

But still, given that the military is the government agency most capable of rapid response coupled with the ability to provide aid and security in short order, why not use the military on a short term basis for humanitarian aid? We sent the military to Thailand and Indonesia after the tsunami. Why? Because they are good a rapid response and logistics.