Click here to view the video on YouTube.

“The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.” ~ James Madison

Resist the police state; RSVP for the December 16 Tea Party Money Bomb at TeaParty11.com.

For those wondering, this is regarding the real Tea Party movement inspired by Ron Paul’s presidential bid in 2007. This has no connection to the phony “Tea Party” movement that was hijacked by the GOP and made a largely anti-Obama campaign.

Share/Bookmark

During the 2008 presidential elections, the Iraq War was one of the prime issues discussed in heated debates between both Democrats and Republicans. Some candidates proposed immediate withdrawal, others suggested a time-table of withdrawal, while Senator John McCain stated it’d “be fine with me” if the U.S. occupied Iraq for up to “one hundred years” (crowecole). On November 15, 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama declared “I’m going to bring this war to a close,” and asserted he would pursue a policy of withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of his victory (BarackObamadotcom).

In February 2009, six weeks after winning the presidential elections, President Obama announced that all combat troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by August 31, 2010. The remaining 50,000 non-combat troops were slated to leave by December 31, 2011 (MSNBC). On August 31, 2010, President Obama confirmed the Bush-era mission objectives had come to a conclusion, stating, “Operation Iraqi Freedom is over” (MSNBC). As promised, combat troops were indeed out of Iraq by the scheduled date. The next day, September 1, Vice President Joe Biden presided over a ceremony to usher in “Operation New Dawn,” the new Iraq mission title of the Obama Administration (Southall).

However, this leaves us the question: what are “non-combat” troops? Do they actually not participate in any combat, or is it a sleek way for the U.S. to continue an occupation of Iraq?

On February 27, 2009, Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained “those [troops] that are left will have a combat capability.” Gates continued:

There will be, as the president said, targeted counterterrorism operations. There will be continued embeds with some of the Iraqi forces in a training capacity and so on. (Gates)

Gates’ explanation makes it clear that non-combat forces are expected to participate in ongoing violent conflicts within Iraq. He says “the mission has changed” and the method of combat “will be completely different” from the policies pursued prior to Obama’s presidency.

It seems to me that “non-combat troops” is a gross misrepresentation of the actual duties of the remaining 50,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Yes, the mission has been altered and the focus of combat has shifted (a debatable point, some might counter), but that doesn’t change the fact that remaining troops are realistically engaged in violent and dangerous activities. Changing the name of the mission and the titles of the soldiers doesn’t change the reality of the actual war being fought on the ground.

On November 9, 2010, the Associated Press reported the “United States is open to the idea of keeping troops in Iraq past a deadline to leave next year if Iraq asks for it.” The article continued on the possibility of U.S. troops staying in Iraq past 2011:

U.S. and Iraqi officials have said for months that they expect Iraqi leaders to eventually ask for an extension of the military agreement with the U.S., but the political impasse has put the idea on hold. (The Associated Press)

This is critical because “Operation New Dawn” may not be as quick and simple of a process as people expected. Defense Secretary Gates does not paint a picture of a secure, reliable Iraqi government, and takes little hesitation to propose keeping U.S. forces there if it’s requested by a legitimate Iraqi group. I am not debating if this is a smart strategic military move, but rather using Gates’ words to question the dependability of the Obama Administration’s withdrawal date for non-combat troops. To put it bluntly, I believe the withdrawal date is not set in stone and it would not be out of the question for the date to extend indefinitely if the security situation in Iraq fails to improve.

One issue that gains relatively small media and political coverage is the role of contractors in the Iraq War. A July 2, 2010 report compiled by Moshe Schwartz, a specialist in defense acquisition, for the Congressional Research Service states as of March 2010 there were “95,461 DOD contractor personnel in Iraq compared to approximately 95,900 uniformed personnel” (Schwartz 7). The most common tasks performed by DOD contractors in Iraq are “Base Support” (facilities management, grounds maintenance, etc.) and “Security” (8).

The Department of State (DS) also hires Private Security Contractors (PSCs) and other contractor positions. On June 21, 2010, Deputy Assistant Security Charlene Lamb explained “the military withdrawal from Iraq will prompt a larger operational role for DS.” She continues in more detail, “DS anticipates that we will need between 6,000 and 7,000 security contractors to meet requirements in Baghdad,” and estimates show “2,200 PSC movement security personnel and as many as 4,600 PSC static guard personnel could be needed to secure these new facilities and support Department programs” (Lamb).

Contractors are not sitting in the background of the Iraq War performing minute tasks; they participate in dangerous operations and are most definitely a part of the action (as would be expected in a war). This is evidenced by the 468 confirmed contractor deaths in Iraq since the war began in 2003 (iCasualties.org). Contractors are very much involved in combat (both directly and indirectly), and must be part of any discussions of withdrawal from Iraq.

While “combat troops” are being withdrawn from Iraq, Charlene Lamb gives the impression that the State Department is essentially planning to fill the void left by the withdrawing troops with more private contractors. It is a mere shift of duties; more of the load is being placed on private contractors hired by the State and Defense Departments. Typically there have been more contractors than troops in Iraq, so the end of the Iraq War means not only the withdrawal of troops but of contractors as well. Contractors are private citizens paid and hired by the DOD and are an integral part of the Iraq occupation, yet the Obama Administration has not been forthright in discussing when or if contractors will be withdrawn. How can the War possibly be over if thousands of private contractors continue the duties of previous occupying forces?

Representative Ron Paul, a Congressman from Texas, is one of the few Republicans in office who opposed the Iraq War from the beginning under the Bush Administration. On December 21, 2001, Ron Paul vocally opposed the resolution to invade Iraq, explaining that invading Iraq “could serve to further Osama bin Laden’s twisted plans for a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West” (Paul). Representative Paul is not convinced that the withdrawal of combat troops means anything significant to ending the War in Iraq. “After eight long draining years,” Paul says, “I have to wonder if our government even understands what it is to end a war anymore.” Paul argues the drawdown of “combat troops” was nothing more than “political maneuvering and semantics in order to convince an increasingly war-weary public that the Iraq War is at last ending” (Paul).

In response to President Obama’s speech announcing the final removal of combat troops and the new era of “Operation New Dawn,” Representative Paul issued a press release stating, “The President’s announcement that all U.S. combat troops have left Iraq is no more believable than the ‘Mission Accomplished’ declaration was in 2003.” Because the 50,000 remaining troops will continue to carry guns and engage in combat missions, several U.S. military bases remain in Iraq, and the number of contractors in Iraq is expected to increase, Paul concludes the Obama Administration’s “new policy is not one of peace but merely a charade” (Business Wire).

Having observed and analyzed this evidence, I have little doubt that there is no foreseeable end in sight with U.S. military involvement in Iraq, particularly when accounting for the looseness of our final withdrawal date in 2011 and the federal government’s escalation of private military contractors in Iraq. The 50,000 armed forces that remain in Iraq today are still engaging in combat missions; little has changed except for their job title. I place value in the words of Representative Ron Paul, someone who adamantly opposed the War from the beginning after the events of September 11, when he calls it an “endless war” (Paul). There is no visible exit strategy proposed by the Obama Administration that takes into consideration the increased role of private contractors and the ongoing combat involvement with remaining troops. The U.S. remains militarily active in Iraq both with “non-combat troops” and private contractors and, judging from the Obama Administration’s actions thus far, there is no conscientious effort to pull out all U.S. forces and bring the War to a close.

Cited Sources

“McCain: 100 years in Iraq ‘would be fine with me’”. YouTube.com. 5 January 2008. crowecole. 4 December 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk>

“Las Vegas Debate: Barack Obama on Iraq”. YouTube.com. 15 November 2007. BarackObamadotcom. 4 December 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFbMz9lpxMQ>

“Obama sets date to end Iraq combat mission”. MSNBC. 27 February 2009. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29371588/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/ (4 December 2010)

“Obama’s full speech: ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom is over’”. MSNBC. 31 August 2010.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38944049/ns/politics-white_house/ (4 December 2010)

Southall, Ashley. “The Early Word: Operation New Dawn”. The New York Times. 1 September 2010. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/the-early-word-operation-new-dawn/ (4 December 2010)

Gates, Robert. “Press Conference Call with Secretary Gates on President Obama’s Troop Withdrawal Plan”. GlobalSecurity.org. 27 February 2009. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/02/mil-090227-dod01.htm (4 December 2009)

“Gates: US open to request from Iraq to stay”. The Associated Press. 9 November 2010. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i6l0KDe5kZGkWiL1AzaP6Wm9aZxg (4 December 2010)

Schwartz, Moshe. “Department of Defense Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan: Background and Analysis”. Congressional Research Service. 2 July 2010. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40764.pdf (5 December 2010)

“Iraq Coalition Casualties: Contractors – A Partial List”. iCasualties.org. 15 Sept. 2010. Web. 5 December 2010.

Lamb, Charlene. “Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs Charlene Lamb’s Remarks on Private Contractors in Iraq”. U.S. Department of State. 21 June 2010. http://www.state.gov/m/ds/rls/rm/143420.htm (5 December 2010)

Paul, Ron. “Statement in Opposition to House Resolution on Iraq”. paul.house.gov. 19 December 2001.
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=370&Itemid=60 (5 December 2009)

Paul, Ron. “Iraq – An End or an Escalation?”. paul.house.gov. 30 August 2010. http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1767&Itemid=69 (5 Dec. 2010)

“Ron Paul on Obama’s Iraq Speech: Mission Not Accomplished”. Business Wire. 1 September 2010.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100901006229/en/Ron-Paul-Obama’s-Iraq-Speech-Mission-Accomplished (5 December 2010)

Share/Bookmark

Since the early 20th century it has been the initiative and policy of the federal government to lower the price of housing so every single family could own a home. Other arrangements that would commonly arise in a free market (such as renting) just don’t fit into the government’s version of the “American dream.” One of the first to lobby for governmental support of individual home ownership was President Herbert Hoover. On July 22, 1932 Hoover signed the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, and he explained the purpose of the bill “is to establish a series of discount banks for home mortgages.” In other words, the federal government would help organize the mortgage loan industry and provide cheaper loans for people to obtain, thus increasing home ownership. Hoover went on to explain:

“In the long view we need at all times to encourage homeownership and for such encouragement it must be possible for homeowners to obtain long-term loans payable in installments. These institutions should provide the method for bringing into continuous and steady action the great home loaning associations which is so greatly restricted due to present pressures.” — Herbert Hoover (Emphasis added.)

The “present pressures” of course being the Great Depression, an eensy-weensy economic slump that resulted in banks giving out fewer loans. Still, Hoover thought this was an appropriate time for government to encourage people to buy a house even if the economy was in dire circumstances. So began the history of the federal government’s intervention in the mortgage market, often subsidizing or forcing banks to lower their lending standards and give loans to people regardless of their ability to pay them back.

Taking Hoover’s actions a step further, President Franklin Roosevelt signed a bill that led to the formulation of Fannie Mae 1938. (Fannie Mae was split up into Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae as well under the Johnson Administration.) Interestingly, these government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) were created to help bail out banks who were faced with (wait for it…) a growing number of mortgage defaults.

Essentially the scenario looks like this: First the government organized banks to lower the price of mortgages in 1932; once people bought the loans, however, many were unable to pay them back and forced to default; upon seeing this flow of events, Roosevelt attempted to bail out the industry by creating Fannie Mae in 1938. This was the beginning of the secondary mortgage market, the practice where the GSEs (using taxpayer dollars) purchase mortgages from banks, thereby freeing up money for the banks to provide more mortgages.

“The GSEs are companies created by Congress to bring liquidity, stability, and affordability to the nation’s residential mortgage markets. Traditionally, we’ve fulfilled this role by purchasing mortgages in the secondary market and bundling them into mortgage-related securities that can be sold to investors or held in our portfolio.” — Ed Haldeman, Freddie Mac CEO

This new setup encouraged banks to offer loans to riskier clients who in an actual market scenario would not be eligible to purchase a mortgage. Because of government’s creation of the secondary mortgage market banks found themselves with extra liquidity, which was used to offer loans to financially-insecure individuals. It’s not tough to do the math: riskier customers lead to a higher likelihood of default. These policies have the least desirable impact on the poor people they are intended to help. In reality,  it is much more economically feasible and sensible for a poor person/family to rent a house or apartment than to buy a house. However, artificially low mortgage rates lure poor people into an investment they won’t possibly be able to pay back. Government’s intervention creates a market imbalance that pushes the poor into buying a house when it is almost certainly not in their long-term interest to do so.

The painful effects of foreclosure we see today are the inevitable consequence of ongoing government meddling in the mortgage market. Government either subsidized or forced banks to offer risky loans to risky customers, but when the entire scheme begins to collapse we’re told it is a failure of the free market. (As if Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Administration, and other such entities were created through free, voluntary exchange and not by politicians and bureaucrats.)

Before someone blames the current economic mess on “deregulation” and injustices of the free market, consider this action undertaken by the Clinton Administration, as explained by the New York Times:

“In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.”

…

“In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.” — New York Times; September 30, 1999

Historical evidence clearly shows that government has led the endorsement of subprime mortgages and lower lending standards, with complete disregard for the economic misery that erupts out of such policies and programs. Increasing bailouts will merely delay and worsen the inevitable collapse of the modern mortgage industry that government has played a major role in creating and sustaining.

Even so, you might say, on September 24, 2008, John McCain suspended his presidential campaign with the selfless objective to pass emergency legislation to “protect taxpayers and homeowners,” so the government must know what it’s doing, right? What America got in September 2008 were the TARP bailouts which, given the situation of the mortgage market today, haven’t done squat to “protect homeowners.” Given the government’s miserable record of attempting to provide affordable housing, who in the world expects more government intervention to save homeowners this time around? You can’t save a drowning person by throwing more water on him, nor can you save a government-manipulated economy with more government intervention.

The free market is the best tool to save the housing market and actually provide affordable housing for those who need it. Allowing liquidation of the housing market is necessary and would bring a short-term correction, but it would end the ongoing misery homeowners are experiencing due to government manipulation in the first place. Housing prices would drop to levels most potential homeowners could actually afford, and it wouldn’t require one dollar of government intervention.

For a true recovery to take place you don’t need increased government spending, intervention, or control; all that’s needed is a return to the free market, where individuals will manage their lives and economic decisions far better than any politician or bureaucrat in Washington D.C. The free market is the only option for a sustainable, lasting, and prosperous recovery.

Share/Bookmark