 |
e-Action Report: Pushing Back The War Economy and a Whack-a-Mole Strategy for the Middle East
In the Presidential debate last Friday there was little to no After the debates the conversation didn't get much better. Obama has said that McCain is a major player in the deregulation of the U.S. economy and that this type of policy is the root of the crisis. Obama told a rally in Detroit, "For most of the 26 years, he's been against the common-sense rules and regulations that could have stopped this problem." McCain maintains that Obama is inexperienced in international affairs and claimed he was naive for publicly suggesting he would attack targets in Pakistan. "You don't broadcast and say you are going bomb the country without their permission or without consulting them. This is the fundamentals of the conduct of national security policy."
With McCain we would have a continued occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan and a strong propensity to attack Iran. With Obama we would have a shortened occupation of Iraq, an extended occupation in Afghanistan and a potential attack on Pakistan (not to mention his refusal to take the option of a military attack on Iran off the table). Our country and our economy cannot sustain either of these scenarios and it's time this reality caught up to political pandering. Neither candidate has made the connection between the trillions of dollars spent on the failed 'Global War on Terror' and the trillions of dollars in debt accrued by the Bush Administration. The latest Peace Action fact sheet makes the connection. The U.S. spends more on our military than all other industrialized nations combined. According to the National Priorities Project a median income family in the U.S. paid $3,736 tax dollars in 2006 – 1/3rd of that sum went to the military. The Vice Presidential debates are an essential component of this discussion. Sarah Palin represents the far-right religious extremists McCain is so eager to win. Biden represents the 'experience' in Washington Obama will call on when making critical decisions about his policies. There is little hope that either VP candidate will address the real problems with the U.S. war economy; but, how they talk about these two interconnected issues (our military and our economy) will give us an indication of what to expect from their administrations. Biden may push for a tough line on terrorism while emphasizing the need to provide funding for comprehensive healthcare indicating his strong support of domestic social programs that address human needs. Palin will undoubtedly toe the party line on Iraq. She is also likely to advocate for more drilling on U.S. soil indicating her strong support for continued oil production and less investment in alternative energy. The nuances in these statements help us identify where the next President's priorities will be. Both candidates say they are for change but neither is advocating the type of economic and social change a Peace Voter can truly get behind. On November 4th we peace activists will cast our vote with this in mind. With a difficult choice ahead Peace Voters must think critically about which candidate will provide the most avenues for progressive values to infiltrate the White House. To help you with this we've created an easy to read Peace Voter Guide that outlines the candidates' positions on military spending, the occupation, and much much more.
|
Tonight, Sarah Palin and Joseph Biden will debate at the University of Washington in St. Louis. This debate will focus on a variety of issues; but, the two most central will be the economic crisis and the situation in the Middle East. While there are major differences in the way that the Democratic and Republican tickets view these issues the tactics for handling them haven't change since Bush first introduced his doctrine.
disagreement that our country is in an economic downfall and that the situation in the Middle East is difficult. But the content of the discussion lacked a significant change in strategy to address either of these problems. At one point in the back-and-forth it seemed the Senators were arguing about which country we should occupy more – Iraq or Afghanistan. Neither candidate offered a suggestion as to how they intended to pay for those occupations.
Both Senators subscribed to the same tired rhetoric put out by the Bush Administration about the Middle East – we can stop Al Qaeda by occupying one country after another. The same tired whack-a-mole foreign policy that is a proven and expensive failure. Neither will admit this 'strategy' only enables new terrorist strongholds. Neither will admit that the U.S. economy cannot sustain the current level of military spending. 
