If you have been a regular reader here, you can probably guess how I will be casting my ballot next Tuesday. Barack Obama is one of my favorite candidates in many years, and Hillary Clinton is similarly one of my least favorite. Neither Obama’s pastor’s inflammatory statements nor his “bitter” statements bother me, but I am somewhat concerned about a policy that both Obama and Clinton espouse: ending United States intervention in Iraq as quickly as possible. Such a withdrawal of forces may be the best policy, but I have not yet heard any major politician propose to do so with what I would consider the proper motives.
“Because the war is unpopular” is a good reason for a politician to promote a policy, but a terrible reason for the country to execute it. “Because it is costing American lives and resources” is a compelling argument, but the cost is not so severe that it should be the most important factor. Whether or not we should have invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein is a red herring. There is one, single consideration that should be made when considering our future policies in Iraq: “What is best for the Iraqi people?” Because we put the Iraqi people in this untenable position, we have a moral responsibility to do whatever we can to help them out of it, as long as we are able to bear the cost of doing so.
The question that must be asked is whether our continued military presence is in the best interest of the Iraqis or not. Two things are certain. First, that the presence of US troops foments violence among people protesting their presence. Second, that the presence of US troops quells violence among people who have the motive but, because of our efforts, lack the capacity to inflict harm on their fellow countrymen. If Obama and others who propose leaving Iraq as soon as possible believe that the former effect is greater than the latter, then I applaud their efforts, but I have not heard anyone say so explicitly. If the latter is more significant, then to leave now and abandon the Iraqi people to their deaths would be a grave moral error.
I do not know whether the presence of US forces is a net positive or negative, but my guess is that it is positive. I base this guess on the prevalence of violence by Iraqis against Iraqis and my perception that the majority of troops on the ground hold this view. People who have studied the problem much more thoroughly and have much more data available than I would be better able to know this than I, but I suspect that there are reasonable people in such a position who would disagree with each other. Ultimately, the people who should be making these decisions are the Iraqi citizens themselves. If such a thing could be done without voter intimidation or fraud, I would strongly suggest that the Iraqi government hold a referendum vote among its citizens as to whether they want American troops in the country or not. I have seen conflicting indications that such a vote would go either way, but the only way to actually know is to do it.
The obvious rebuttal to this is to ask how much we do owe the Iraqis at this point. Certainly, our aid cannot be unlimited and open-ended. I cannot say when our debt will be paid, but I feel strongly that we have not done enough yet to help the Iraqis build a stable government.
While I am on the topic of disturbing politician rhetoric, their responses to the rising price of gasoline are quite absurd. Like anyone else, I do not like paying this much to fill my tank, but this does not cause me to throw my common sense out the window. Obama proposes that oil companies should pay a tax on “windfall profits”. If oil companies currently currently are receiving specific tax incentives, they should be discontinued, as should any such measures intended to prop up an industry that was once in danger of failing but is now prosperous. To add additional taxes specifically for refineries, however, is preposterous. If it is so important for the government to “punish” oil companies for their success, then the tax system should be made more progressive such that all highly profitable companies are equally affected. John McCain’s proposal to forgo federal taxes on gasoline during the summer is even more ridiculous. Does he suppose that the price of gasoline will suddenly and permanently drop below what the market will bear? It might have a short-term effect for consumers, but would ultimately enrich refineries and retailers who could increase prices without increasing cost to consumers. Never mind how the already cash-strapped department of transportation would recoup these lost revenues. The only way there will be a significant reduction in the price of gasoline is if supply increases or demand decreases.
Ok, just one more point. An example of the sliminess of Clinton that I despise. One of Obama’s talking points is that, unlike Clinton, he does not accept campaign funding from oil companies (or other corporate interests). Hillary is now running an attack ad trying to make Obama look like a liar by saying “No one takes money from oil companies; it’s been illegal for a hundred years. Obama accepted campaign contributions from the following list of people employed by the oil industry.” Given that corporations are, indeed, not allowed to donate to political campaigns, it is quite obvious that Obama is referring to political action committees funded by the industry, which he does not accept donations from but Clinton does. As for listing his individual donors, is Obama supposed to screen the employers of everyone who gives him money? That would be ridiculous.