Obama speaks eloquently about the need to prevent genocide around the world. One problem: When it was put to him that we might face genocide in Iraq if we left, Obama said that was a price he was willing to pay. I’m all for the U.S. stopping genocide where and when we can. I am against causing genocide, even indirectly, always and everywhere. It is a profound moral distinction.

From a column I wrote on this last year:

Barack Obama says preventing genocide isn’t a good enough reason to stay in Iraq.
“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,” he told 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.”
It’s worth pointing out a key difference between the potential genocide in Iraq and the heart-wrenching slaughters in Congo and Sudan: The latter aren’t our fault. But if genocide unfolds in Iraq after American troops depart, it would be hard to argue that we weren’t at least partly to blame. Yes, the mass murder would have more immediate authors than the United States of America, but we would undeniably be responsible, at least in part, for giving a green light to genocide. Obama offers precisely that green light in his proposed Iraq War De-escalation Act….
….Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home.