SMALL BUSINESS AND POLITICS WORKING TOGETHER
8 years ago
President Obama has set a deadline of 18 months for US operations in Iraq. But he plans to leave 50,000 US troops there "to provide stability." Democrats are not happy with the decision. According to Reuters,
It is quite possible, as has been claimed by Woolsey, that the Iraqis may consider these 50,000 troops an occupation force. It is possible too that the presence of these US troops will prove to be a catalyst for further recruitment by Al Qaeda. Personally, I am opposed to this decision. US troops should leave. None should remain. Iraq has a government now, after all. And a military and a police force. Yet Obama has, he says, reasons for leaving US troops in place: "Obama said 35,000 to 50,000 troops would stay to train and equip the Iraqi forces, protect civilian reconstruction projects and conduct limited counterterrorism operations." It is hardly surprising that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates favors the move. He is a Republican after all:
Obama seems to be a bit wishy-washy about what American goals are, and that's an uncomfortable thought, given that we have just ended an eight year reign by King George without any clear direction in our foreign policy. In Obama's words, the U.S. troop drawdown sent a "clear signal that Iraq's future is now its own responsibility."
"We cannot sustain indefinitely a commitment that has put a strain on our military, and will cost the American people nearly a trillion dollars," he said.
Right. So we're leaving 50,000 troops there...why, exactly? If there is no definite timetable to bring them home, we can legitimately question what Obama means by "indefinitely." The opposite of definite is, after all, indefinite. I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed in President Obama.
And while Democrats are unhappy with the plan, Republicans are, unsurprisingly, happy: "Overall it is a reasonable plan and one that can work and I support it," said John McCain, who had earlier criticized his 16-month withdrawal plan.
It is interesting that Obama, who criticized Bush by letting Iraq distract him from the goal of toppling Al Qaeda and capturing Osama bin Laden, now seems himself distracted by Iraq. Yes, it was Bush who made the mistake of attacking a sovereign nation without any justification whatsoever, but it's time to correct that mistake and get out. Staying there is not the answer. Yes, our government is likely worried about the staying power of the Iraqi government and possible destabilization of the region, but they're not seeing the forest for the trees. Our being there is a destabilizing influence. It's time to pull our collective chestnuts out of the fire and go home.
Congressional Democrats who fought the Bush administration for two years to bring home U.S. forces home expressed disappointment, with Senate leader Harry Reid saying 50,000 troops was "higher than I had anticipated" and Representative Lynn Woolsey calling it "unacceptable."
It is quite possible, as has been claimed by Woolsey, that the Iraqis may consider these 50,000 troops an occupation force. It is possible too that the presence of these US troops will prove to be a catalyst for further recruitment by Al Qaeda. Personally, I am opposed to this decision. US troops should leave. None should remain. Iraq has a government now, after all. And a military and a police force. Yet Obama has, he says, reasons for leaving US troops in place: "Obama said 35,000 to 50,000 troops would stay to train and equip the Iraqi forces, protect civilian reconstruction projects and conduct limited counterterrorism operations." It is hardly surprising that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates favors the move. He is a Republican after all:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would favor a modest U.S. military presence in Iraq even after the end of 2011 to assist Iraqi security forces if requested by Baghdad.
Obama seems to be a bit wishy-washy about what American goals are, and that's an uncomfortable thought, given that we have just ended an eight year reign by King George without any clear direction in our foreign policy. In Obama's words, the U.S. troop drawdown sent a "clear signal that Iraq's future is now its own responsibility."
"We cannot sustain indefinitely a commitment that has put a strain on our military, and will cost the American people nearly a trillion dollars," he said.
Right. So we're leaving 50,000 troops there...why, exactly? If there is no definite timetable to bring them home, we can legitimately question what Obama means by "indefinitely." The opposite of definite is, after all, indefinite. I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed in President Obama.
And while Democrats are unhappy with the plan, Republicans are, unsurprisingly, happy: "Overall it is a reasonable plan and one that can work and I support it," said John McCain, who had earlier criticized his 16-month withdrawal plan.
It is interesting that Obama, who criticized Bush by letting Iraq distract him from the goal of toppling Al Qaeda and capturing Osama bin Laden, now seems himself distracted by Iraq. Yes, it was Bush who made the mistake of attacking a sovereign nation without any justification whatsoever, but it's time to correct that mistake and get out. Staying there is not the answer. Yes, our government is likely worried about the staying power of the Iraqi government and possible destabilization of the region, but they're not seeing the forest for the trees. Our being there is a destabilizing influence. It's time to pull our collective chestnuts out of the fire and go home.
We hear from Reuters that "President Barack Obama forecast the biggest U.S. deficit since World War Two in a budget on Thursday that urges a costly overhaul of the healthcare system and would spend billions to arrest the economy's freefall."
While this is not good news, it's not surprising. We must spend to get out of this depression and only the government has the ability to do that spending. Still:
Reuters also reports:
This will likely not sit well with many on the left who are opposed to both wars. I predicted continued high military spending, however. Clearly, the military, despite ghastly high levels of funding, is worn down. Equipment needs to be replaced, more (and better) equipment is needed and bringing the troops home from Iraq (and sending others to Afghanistan) will not be cheap. In addition, equipment will be left behind because of our accelerated withdrawal and will need to be replaced.
The US has 142,000 troops in Iraq and 38,000 in Afghanistan.
This last bit is no surprise at all:
Of course, Republican responses are typically amusing: "I have serious concerns with this budget, which demands hard-working American families and job creators turn over more of their hard-earned money to the government to pay for unprecedented spending increases," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. Wow, unprecedented? The Republicans conveniently forget who got us into both of these wars - and who mismanaged them both, and who ran our economy into the ground. Amazing that they become fiscal conservatives only when they're no longer in power.
"I think we just ought to admit we're broke. We can't continue to pile debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids," said House Republican Leader John Boehner. Right, John. And whose fault is this? Being broke wouldn't have anything to do with two wars and a mismanaged economy, would it? Under Republican auspices? Ring a bell?
While this is not good news, it's not surprising. We must spend to get out of this depression and only the government has the ability to do that spending. Still:
An eye-popping $1.75 trillion deficit for the 2009 fiscal year underlined the heavy blow the deep recession has dealt to the country's finances as Obama unveiled his first budget. That is the highest ever in dollar terms, and amounts to a 12.3 percent share of the economy -- the largest since 1945. In 2010, the deficit would dip to a still-huge $1.17 trillion, Obama predicted.
Reuters also reports:
President Barack Obama requested about $205 billion in war funding through the end of fiscal 2010 on Thursday, as he sought to withdraw tens of thousands of troops from Iraq and boost forces fighting a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.
Obama's first budget proposal asked for $75.5 billion through September, which would bring total war spending to $141.4 billion for the current fiscal year. Obama also requested a slightly smaller $130 billion to fund the wars for fiscal year 2010, which starts on October 1.
Obama asked Congress to increase the Pentagon's regular budget to $533.7 billion next year -- up 4 percent, or $20.4 billion, from its spending plan for the current year, drawn up under the Bush administration.
This will likely not sit well with many on the left who are opposed to both wars. I predicted continued high military spending, however. Clearly, the military, despite ghastly high levels of funding, is worn down. Equipment needs to be replaced, more (and better) equipment is needed and bringing the troops home from Iraq (and sending others to Afghanistan) will not be cheap. In addition, equipment will be left behind because of our accelerated withdrawal and will need to be replaced.
U.S. military spending accounts for roughly half the global total, according to independent experts.
Obama, who took office on January 20, made a campaign promise to bring U.S. troops home from the unpopular Iraq war and was expected to announce his withdrawal plans in a speech on Friday at Camp Lejeune, a Marine Corps base in North Carolina.
But Obama has also authorized the deployment of 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, where insurgent violence is worsening. The costs of pulling out of Iraq and building up in Afghanistan mean the price of the wars will remain high.
The US has 142,000 troops in Iraq and 38,000 in Afghanistan.
This last bit is no surprise at all:
U.S. congressional Republicans, having vowed to return to the conservative ideals of limited government, denounced President Barack Obama's $3.55 trillion budget on Thursday as excessive and misdirected.
Of course, Republican responses are typically amusing: "I have serious concerns with this budget, which demands hard-working American families and job creators turn over more of their hard-earned money to the government to pay for unprecedented spending increases," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. Wow, unprecedented? The Republicans conveniently forget who got us into both of these wars - and who mismanaged them both, and who ran our economy into the ground. Amazing that they become fiscal conservatives only when they're no longer in power.
"I think we just ought to admit we're broke. We can't continue to pile debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids," said House Republican Leader John Boehner. Right, John. And whose fault is this? Being broke wouldn't have anything to do with two wars and a mismanaged economy, would it? Under Republican auspices? Ring a bell?
Here is a plan the Obama administration will absolutely NOT support: a mileage tax. Secretary Ray LaHood of the Transportation Department had earlier called it an idea "we should look at." Typically Republican:
Just crazy. Why would anyone think this is a good idea? CNN reports:
This is how it would have worked, according to the report:
I can understand the reasoning behind a program such as this - funding our infrastructure, and apparently helping the environment and reducing reliance on foreign fuel hurts the cause because with consumers buying less gas, the government takes in less money. "Last fall, Congress approved an $8 billion infusion into the depleted federal highway trust fund," CNN tells us. Unsurprisingly, people were not enthused by the idea. There are privacy issues, for one thing. Do we really need the government looking over our shoulder as we drive and watching our movements?
There has to be a better way, and I'm sure something will be found. Some possible solutions have already been suggested:
The Republicans complaining about big government will no doubt fail to take notice of this action by the Obama administration. They will find something else to attack and if there is nothing else to attack, they will invent something. Welcome to 2009, my friends. The loyal opposition is not so loyal after all.
Speaking to The Associated Press, Transportation Secretary LaHood, an Illinois Republican, said, "We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled." The remark was part of a discussion about various options to help make up for the highway funding shortfall on the federal level.
Just crazy. Why would anyone think this is a good idea? CNN reports:
In a written statement, the department said, "The policy of taxing motorists based on how many miles they have traveled is not and will not be Obama administration policy."
The idea -- which involves tracking drivers through Global Positioning System (GPS) units in their cars -- is gaining support in some states as a way of making up for a shortfall in highway funding. Oregon carried out a pilot program and deemed it "successful."
This is how it would have worked, according to the report:
Under a VMT (vehicle miles traveled) tax program, GPS units would allow the government to keep track of how much each car is driven and where -- though not necessarily with exact street locations. The government could also track other things, including the time each car enters a certain zone.
I can understand the reasoning behind a program such as this - funding our infrastructure, and apparently helping the environment and reducing reliance on foreign fuel hurts the cause because with consumers buying less gas, the government takes in less money. "Last fall, Congress approved an $8 billion infusion into the depleted federal highway trust fund," CNN tells us. Unsurprisingly, people were not enthused by the idea. There are privacy issues, for one thing. Do we really need the government looking over our shoulder as we drive and watching our movements?
There has to be a better way, and I'm sure something will be found. Some possible solutions have already been suggested:
- tolls
- higher registration fees
- and other types of taxes
The Republicans complaining about big government will no doubt fail to take notice of this action by the Obama administration. They will find something else to attack and if there is nothing else to attack, they will invent something. Welcome to 2009, my friends. The loyal opposition is not so loyal after all.
President Obama has made the first trip of his presidency - to Canada today. He is even more popular in Canada than in the US (they're not burdened with our religious conservatives) - 81%. Canada is a good place to start. Hilary Clinton is in the Far East and Obama has a special envoy in the Middle East, and for too long matters on the American continents have suffered because of Bush's lack of effort in cultivating friends. A dictatorial style does not get you far. There is a lot of ill will to be addressed and mended at this point.There are some issues between our two countries that will be addressed. As CNN lists them:
- The war in Afghanistan: Canada has about 2,800 troops in Afghanistan, but Parliament has voted to pull them out by 2011.
- At the same time, Obama has approved a significant increase in U.S. troops in Afghanistan, bringing the total there to 55,000.
- Obama said he will take up the issue of Canada's troop withdrawal with Prime Minister Stephen Harper when the two meet in Ottawa.
"My hope is that in conversations that I have with Prime Minister Harper, that he and I end up seeing the importance of a comprehensive strategy, and one that ultimately the people of Canada can support, as well as the people of the United States can support," he told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Tuesday. - A "Buy American" clause in Washington's economic stimulus package: Canadians worry about protectionism because of a provision in the package that requires the use of U.S.-produced iron, steel and other manufactured goods in public works projects paid for by the $787 billion package.
According to Reuters, Obama reassured the Canadians on open trade.
Obama, on his first trip abroad as president, sought in talks with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to allay Canadian concerns raised by a "Buy American" clause in a $787 billion U.S. economic recovery plan he signed this week.
"Now is a time where we have to be very careful about any signals of protectionism," Obama told a joint news conference after several hours of talks with Harper on his one-day visit to Ottawa.
"And as obviously one of the largest economies in the world, it's important for us to make sure that we are showing leadership in the belief that trade ultimately is beneficial to all countries," he said.
He stressed the United States would meet its international trade obligations and told Harper he wanted to "grow trade not contract it."
I believe that free trade is good. I was convinced of that by a macro economics class in college. But what we have had is not really fair trade. We allow all imports but other countries limit ours. That is NOT free trade, and I hope Obama will address that.
And unfortunately, improving the environment does not seem to be high on the agenda: "But with his country facing its worst economic crisis in decades, Obama stressed the importance of Canada as the United States' largest energy provider. Most of the output of the oil sands is destined for U.S. markets." Cleaning up "oil sands in the western province of Alberta, from which oil is extracted in a process that spews out large amounts of greenhouse gases" will have to wait. Obama campaigned on a green ticket but I can understand that there will be limitations on what can be done given the state of the economy. Still, it is unhappy news, if not unexpected.
