As usual, I’ve been listening to what Senator Obama has been saying from the campaign trail, and I’ve come to a very important conclusion. His ideology has some very significant inconsistencies. The statements that brought this to the forefront this week have been his statements about Iraq.

Unfortunately, the military and political situation in Iraq has been mired by the media, and by some polls, only 34% of Americans support the “war”. What Senator Obama and most Americans have lost sight of the fact that the situation in Iraq is a very crucial battle for global stability. The recent tactic that Senator Obama has been using in his presidential campaign is enforcing his stance against the invasion of Iraq. Well, he was a liberal Illinois senator who was adhering to his liberal ideology. So, it didn’t take moral courage or strong insight to oppose a war. It was more of an impulse than a decision; much like a persons leg jerks when a doctor taps his or her knee with a hammer. 

People need to remember that Obama has some issues that are very ingrained in his liberal ideology, and will certainly divide this nation. Though the evidence is largely unpublicized, the small indicators are everywhere. For example, when asked about his favorite actors, Senator Obama said he like Jimmy Stewart, Spencer Tracy and Humphrey Bogart. These men are classic actors, who no one can deny as significant figures in American entertainment history. Heck, “It’s a Wonderful Life” is even one of my favorite movies. Senator Obama followed up those three great actors by saying his favorite actresses included Meryl Streep and Susan Sarandon. Why is that significant? Because those two women have a fairly mediocre film history, but are adamant anti-war activists. Meryl Streep has been in two outwardly anti-war and anti-American movies in the last year, “Lions for Lambs” and “Rendition”, both of which were box office flops. Susan Sarandon has led protests all over the world against US troops accusing them of killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and stating things like people join the military because they don’t have any other opportunities and soldiers are below average intelligence. Such “great actresses” who are adored by Senator Obama simply point to his extremist beliefs against our military past and future.

Senator Obama has used the withdrawal from Iraq as a major platform for his candidacy. He has backpedaled a bit on his “immediate withdrawal” policy, but he has said that he would set a timeline for withdrawal. However, he did say that he would send Soldiers back to Iraq if Al Qaeda established bases of operations in Iraq. The McCain Campaign was quick to react to this absurdity. Senator McCain pointed out that Al Qaeda is already in Iraq, and it is the U.S. that is preventing them from having destructive results in Iraq. Not to be outdone, Senator Obama stated that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the U.S. invasion. I believe that question is still to be answered, but there are some facts that I have seen with my own eyes that indicate there was a strong relationship between Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups.

Senator Obama, like most liberals, likes to use the argument that the U.S. invasion was about Bush lying about weapons of mass destruction. Ok, we didn’t find a smoking gun that supported the WMD intelligence, but while in Iraq, I spent ten months side-by-side with an Army nuclear, biological and chemical specialist. We found mobile labs built into buses and truck trailers.  We also found truck trailers filled with lab equipment and blueprints buried in the middle of the desert, and we found centrifuges the size of VW Bugs hidden in underground caverns. Unfortunately, very few people in America believe such evidence that points to Saddam’s ability to produce WMD. Fine. That issue left the barn years ago, and is politically irrelevant.

So, was the invasion of Iraq significant for the war against terrorism? That question is far easier to answer, but again, not publicized enough to be overwhelmingly compelling. Again, I can tell you what I saw during the initial invasion of Iraq, which was supposedly before terrorist organizations were in Iraq. It is very common knowledge that Saddam had a policy of giving money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. I believe that figure was $25,000 per suicide bomber. Doesn’t that appear to be financial support of terrorists?

Additionally, when we first arrived in Baghdad, my unit had a bit of a territory scuffle with a Marine unit because there was a suicide bomber vest factory in southeast Baghdad, and both units wanted credit for exploiting it. Unfortunately, we were too naïve to understand that the discovery would be largely ignored. I’m not a detective, but doesn’t the manufacturing and distribution of suicide bomber vests provide material support for terrorist activities? I’ve also participated in the operations that investigated or destroyed terror training camps in northern Iraq that where there for years before the 2003 invasion.

Senator Obama is going to try to use two tactics to shore up his stance against the Iraq war. His first tactic will be the legitimacy of the initial invasion. This tactic has already gained a lot of ground because the Bush administration has done such a poor job of explaining the terror ties to Iraq. So, arguments of supporting UN resolutions, the overthrowing of a murderous dictator, and the geographic significance of Iraq to other Islamofascist nations is probably a tactic that Senator Obama, with the support of a liberal media, will use very successfully because he can tie any Republican back to the “failed policies” of President Bush. Recent successes by General Petraeus in Iraq have been ignored by the media, so the average American will step right in line with the “failed policies” argument. Ideology trumps facts unless people are willing to do a little more homework than watch CNN or listen to NPR.

The second tactic Senator Obama is sure to use is the cost of the war in Iraq and the distraction from Afghanistan. In a speech last week, Senator Obama stated that the U.S. is spending $12 billion a month in Iraq. He went on to say that money could be used at home to support education and healthcare. That is a very affective, but inconsistent issue for Senator Obama to head toward. Sure, war costs a lot of money, but funding national defense is the most overt federal policy outlined in the Constitution. Yes, that silly little document that Senator Obama wishes to ignore or re-write defends our presence in Iraq. 

The fiscal responsibility of Iraq will ultimately preserve the economic success at home. Muslim extremists have been battling the U.S. very aggressively since the Carter administration. On 9-11, they attacked a symbol of American and Global economic prosperity, and over a million American jobs were lost within three months. There has not been a significant terrorist attack on US soil since 2001, and the economic effects of another attack could be far more devastating than the costs of any sustained military operation. Whether you want to believe it or not, military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have kept Muslim extremists a bit too occupied to attack the U.S. infrastructure.

This irresponsible ideology of “saving money” by withdrawing from Iraq is inconsistent when you look at Senator Obama’s Globalized worldview. He is willing to introduce a Global Poverty bill, and he expresses the United States’ need to be cooperative in a global society, but he thinks it isn’t necessary to spend money in a destabilized country in order to achieve peace and build alliances. Not to mention that spending money on government programs at home has proven to weaken the United States economy and citizen resolve.

Senator Obama, much like his Democratic predecessors, has no clue on the gravity of Islamic terrorism on the US economy and safety. Iraq, though many would argue was a war waged on an illegal precedence, is the key to the future of peace and stability all over the world. So, Senator Obama needs “live in the now, man”, and find solutions that will address the current situation. Unfortunately, his ideology prevents him from making reasonable or responsible choices on the economy and national defense.