inconsistency, ignorance and irresponsibility

Barack Obama has released his “Blueprint for Change” detailing the issues he will tackle and what he will do for the country if he were elected president. Being the person I am, I went straight to the foreign policy section and meticulously went through it.

Here is where it can be found:

http://origin.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

I was quite surprised and baffled. He is not as anti-military as I thought. He is careful to specify that the currently unpopular Iraqi conflict will be “ended” by him, but that the threat of Al Qaeda and other terrorists will also be dealt with. He does not discuss how these two incompatible policies will be reconciled by his administration, however.

He says:

“I will end the war in Iraq. … I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus. I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda. And I will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century: nuclear weapons and terrorism”

Obama emphatically states that he will withdraw no matter the consequences when he is president. That is what he means by “end the war.”

How exactly does he intend to both end the war in Iraq and fight Al Qaeda and terrorism if currently a main front for fighting both of them is in Iraq?

Terrorists swarmed into Iraq after we invaded to try and kick us out. I have a hard time believing that their presence and bases and ideology would simply vanish if the US evacuated from a turmoiled Iraq.

Reality check to Barack Obama: countries without a strong government equipped to stand against a terrorist presence and ideology in the middle east will be a haven for terrorists – including those terrorists who mean harm to the US.

He says:

“if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, [Obama] will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda”

This is just stupid.

Reality check to Barack Obama: Al Qaeda has bases within Iraq…and we are keeping troops in Iraq now to carry out targeted strikes – what do you think the current conflict in Iraq is all about? We’re not fighting the Iraqi government – we’re fighting insurgents and terrorists including those affiliated with Al Qaeda!

What about all that talk about “bringing our troops home?” Does this mean he will bring our troops home, and then send them right back?

Obama begins to talk about the threat of Iran in these words:

“Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust.”

He then goes on to explain he will not use the threat of force, as Bush did, to pressure Iran.

Then he says: “If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.”

So, essentially he is doing what any president, including Bush would do, except he takes the possibility of war out of the picture which means he is actually reducing, not increasing our options to deal effectively with a violent Iran.

Reality check to Barack Obama: If Iran has “sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and threatens Israel” (with words like “Israel should be wiped off the map”) then you’d better believe Iran is thinking about war as an option to get what it wants, if necessary.

By deciding that we will not use force, we are letting them know that they can use more force and kill more people and be more drastic in their measures before we will even consider force. This is not a Hollywood police negotiation. If we put down our loaded gun and try to “talk” to them they won’t just put down their gun too.

In the 20^th century we have found that authoritarian regimes nearly always:

1. Use violence to get what they want
2. Are only deterred by violence or the threat of it

Let me be clear: I do not advocate war with Iran right now. I simply believe it is unbearably irresponsible, given the 20^th century’s history of how authoritarian regimes function, to decide to not use the (non-empty) threat of American force as a diplomatic option.

As I said before, I’m concerned about the life and death issues. This doesn’t mean I don’t care about other ones – just less informed about them! However, as long as I’m talking about Obama, I’m concerned about this:

GOP.com says that Barack has a fiscal agenda of 874.35 billion dollars in new spending.

Found here:

http://www.gop.com/obamaspendometer.htm

Current spending is 2, 800 billion, so just under three trillion. In order to get this new spending Barack wants, we will either needed to replace about one third of the current spending, or get a ton of new money altogether.

Side note: to my understanding, this includes thousands of new government jobs created for the sake of creating jobs. I’m not an economist, but why is that a wise idea when we have a super low unemployment rate currently? Couldn’t that potentially hurt the economy?

If we assume that he will use new money:

874 billion is nearly one trillion. Our GDP in 2006 was just over 13 trillion, so almost one thirteenth (or 7.7%) of our entire nations wealth will have to be used for that spending. Where will we get this money? Taxes! This means that on average, taxes will have to be raised much much more than anyone will want.

If we assume he will replace about one third of the current spending:

Congressional Budget Office for FY2008 says this is how government spending is divided up:

33% Medicare, Medicaid and other mandatory

18% Non-defense discretionary

8% Interest on the national debt

21% Social Security

20% Defense

Where will he take the 33% from? He wants to increase Medicare and Medicaid, he won’t take from SS or interest on the debt I’m sure. That leaves defense and non-defense discretionary. If he takes the bulk from defense, I’m sure our country will do just fine now that terrorism is literally world wide, China’s military grows by leaps and bounds every year and unpredictable North Korea can make nukes.

I’m sure there’s a way he can do it without increasing our eye-popping security threats that we currently have – just read each year’s National Security Threat Assessments to the US Congress.

Yes, he can do it, after all, “Yes we can” are his famous words.