America's moral responsibility

After reading the Economist's analysis of the presidential primary mash-up that was New Hampshire, I don't think its too far-fetched to say the editors are pulling for Obama.

Nevertheless, they say New Hampshire did well not to create an Obama juggernaut, because there are just too many unanswered questions that Obama needs to answer, one being on Iraq after an American withdrawal.

For instance, Mr Obama shows no particular sign of being able to reconcile the need to end the occupation of Iraq with the need to avoid the disaster that a power vacuum in the heart of the Middle East would cause. Tell us more, said many voters in New Hampshire: to that extent, they were right to deny him certain nomination.

I'd like to see not only Obama answer this question regarding America's responsibility to Iraq, but all the candidates. Like it or not, the U.S. has a moral responsibility to Iraq. The prime one being to avert genocide if American troops are indeed withdrawn and also give those Iraqis that helped the U.S. military a fresh start in America.

While the former is an open question for the candidates, the second is not as America abandons its Iraqi friends. George Packer explains:

Two months ago, I mentioned the State Department's latest promise to resettle twelve thousand Iraqis in the United States in the coming fiscal year. Since then, the monthly totals have dropped from 450 in October to 362 in November and 245 last month. At this rate, the government will have to admit almost eleven thousand Iraqi refugees in the next nine months--more than twelve hundred a month--in order to achieve its own goal: doubtful.

It will be interesting to see if any candidate has the courage to use the bully pulpit the primaries afford to shame President Bush into acknowledging this despicable treatment of Iraqis that bought into his freedom-loving Iraq narrative. They deserve better, much better.