Has anybody other than Obama remembered the War in Iraq?

Joel Wing, the author of the blog Musings on Iraq has correctly pointed out the number of U.S. troops stationed in Iraq has declined from a high water mark of 171,000 in October 2007 to a mere 77,500 today. This is mainly a result of Obama's withdrawal strategy he announced soon after being sworn in as President. This fact has mainly been overlooked by the mainstream media, who have been preoccupied by the President's Afghanistan strategy. Yes, many of the troops being withdrawn from Iraq will eventually end up in Afghanistan, but that does not mean that the United States withdrawing from Iraq is not a big deal. The war in Iraq is arguably one of the most controversial military incursions the U.S. has ever engaged in, after Vietnam. Afghanistan, however, is far from that.

President Obama announced his strategy in Afghanistan to the usual responses. The liberals criticized the surge and conservatives criticized the planned withdrawal. The notable thing there was the existence of a withdrawal at all. Had Obama really wanted to fight the war in Afghanistan he would not have set a withdrawal date. By pulling troops from Iraq to Afghanistan he was doing a politically popular move. Once public opinion toward the War in Afghanistan shifts toward opposition, Obama can easily pull all the remaining troops out of the Middle East. Expect public opinion to solidify in the coming months around strong disapproval of the war. When that happens, it is likely we will see most combat troops returning home.


This is what I hope will happen. Escalating the War in Afghanistan was a pillar of Obama's campaign, one which seems to be forgotten by most anti-war activists. If he doesn't withdraw from Afghanistan, get ready for Lyndon Johnson (The Sequel.)

You won't see the GOP filibustering defense spending

First, it was Jim Bunning blocking an unemployment benefit extension because the cost of it was not offset. It ended up passing. Then they blocked it again, this time with additional support from their caucus. It also ended up passing. A further unemployment benefit extension is now about to come up for a vote, with Republicans vowing once again to block it unless the cost is fully offset by spending cuts. The Senate adjourned for their recess without voting on the measure, so on June 2, nearly 200,000 people will lose their unemployment benefits. This cuts nearly 200,000 people a week off from the money they need to put food on their table, their health insurance and their livelihoods. This is all to make the point that deficit spending is wrong.

Let's put this in perspective. The Republicans began this deficit with two wars which were not paid for. War funding is essentially a benefit program. The money goes to pay for the deployed soldiers, their equipment and their well being. This is a social support program paid for by deficit spending. See any parallels? If the Republicans were actually trying to make a point about deficit spending they would block votes on ALL spending bills, not only unemployment benefit extensions. Furthermore, blocking unemployment benefits at a time when near 10% of the working population is unemployed is a completely reprehensible thing to do. Just as it would be completely unforgivable to cut soldiers off from their supplies.

Did you remember the Great Depression? How about WW2?

The Foundry's Kathryn Nix correctly pointed out on Friday that Obama is spending at levels never seen since World War II. She goes on to claim that Obama is going against public opinion in doing so. Lets not take these numbers out of context. In 1945, America had just pulled itself out of one of the most severe economic slump in American history and won one of the most costly wars it ever involved itself in. The spike in government spending was due to a combination of economic relief programs and military expenditures. That was then.

What has changed now? We are going through the Great Recession, fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are feeling the effects of an restructured economy. As business activity is down, the GDP shrinks, and public spending for the unemployed rises. This leads to government spending taking up a considerably larger percent of GDP than it would otherwise. Yes, the stimulus bill and TARP did not help, but that's because nobody wanted to raise taxes to do so. Which is what you wanted right? I'm not saying the level of debt we have is acceptable, I'm only hoping people will look at the whole picture when it comes to GDP spending.