"Obama is making a choice now that will lead to the deaths of many thousands of civilians in Afghanistan by American hands. By ordinary standards of presidents, he is a decent man. But those standards aren't good enough. He's in a position either to kill or not to kill, and he's made the decision to kill"

Daniel Ellsberg’s words draw a stark moral distinction between personal decency and the weight of political leadership, particularly when life-and-death decisions are concerned. He criticizes President Obama’s decision to expand or continue military operations in Afghanistan, foreseeing that such choices will inevitably result in the deaths of thousands of civilians at the hands of American forces. The passage sets up a tension between conventional standards used to judge presidents – the idea of being “decent” by the yardstick of predecessors – and a higher, more rigorous ethical standard that transcends mere relativity or historical comparison. For Ellsberg, the real test of a leader’s morality lies not in personal charm or relative virtue, but in the consequences of their actions, especially the harm inflicted on innocent lives.

Ellsberg underlines the magnitude of presidential power, focusing on moments where the president has the clear agency to choose between courses that will either spare or destroy lives. The decision is rendered stark: to kill or not to kill. This framing strips away the layers of political rhetoric and justifications that often obscure the true impact of executive decisions in wartime. It highlights how moral accountability cannot be diluted by comparing one leader to another or excusing harmful acts as the status quo. Good intentions or personal likability do not absolve a president from the consequences of choosing policies that will inevitably kill civilians.

The statement is especially poignant considering Ellsberg’s background as a whistleblower during the Vietnam War, someone intimately aware of the costs of U.S. military intervention. His critique is not merely of Obama as an individual but of the institutional inertia that allows leaders to rely on inadequate standards of decency. Ellsberg’s appeal is for leaders, and those who judge them, to recognize the profound moral gravity that comes with the capacity to decide matters of life and death for thousands, and to hold those decisions to the highest possible standards, not just the precedents set by those who came before.