Obama on the Precipice: The Ten Worst Things He Could Do When He Takes Over

By Don Hazen and Jan Frel and Joshua Holland and Liliana Segura and Tara Lohan and Heather Gehlert, AlterNet. Posted January 17, 2009.

“Finally, we must change how we produce energy, how we consume it, and above all, how much greenhouse gas we emit. That's a long-term proposition that will require research and reconstruction on a grand scale." 

In terms of the efficiency of the spending, according to an analysis by economist Mark Zandi of Moody's (who happens to be a conservative Republican), a dollar spent on infrastructure gives the economy a boost of $1.59; a dollar in aid to cash-strapped states gets $1.36 back in economic activity, and each buck spent on food stamps provides $1.73 worth of stimulus. Meanwhile, each dollar spent on corporate tax breaks results in an economic boost of 30 cents; a dollar for reducing capital gains taxes results in 37 cents worth of stimulus, and each dollar in lost revenues from making Bush's tax cuts permanent gives the economy a miniscule 29-cent lift.

Where Obama puts his money really matters. Sara Robinson writes, "It's got to be big. And it's got to be now. Anything too small -- or too late -- and the American economy will be at serious risk of stagnating the same way Japan's did in the 1990s." 

Mistake II: Escalate the War in Afghanistan & Continue the Occupation in Iraq 

Does Obama feel like he has to appear tough with his own war, oddly known as the good war, but one that huge numbers of experienced hands make clear is a recipe for huge disaster? Looking at history, it seems like the word quagmire was created for Afghanistan. You would think that Obama would grasp that with our unbelievable economic challenges, we can't even afford to escalate in Afghanistan, regardless of moral issues or questions of national interest. 

But if we do, we are asking for big trouble. Robert Dreyfuss writes that surging troops into Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, "will only provide the Taliban with many more targets, sparking Pashtun nationalist resistance and inspiring more recruits for the insurgency. Tariq Ali says that pacifying the country would require at least 200,000 more troops, beyond the 62,000 U.S. and NATO forces there now, and that it would necessitate laying waste huge parts of Afghanistan. Many Afghan watchers consider the war unwinnable, and they point out that in the 1980s the Soviet Union, with far more troops, had engaged in a brutal nine-year counterinsurgency war -- and lost." 

Dreyfuss quotes Chas Freeman, president of the Middle East Policy Council and a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia:

"We need to recall the reason we went to Afghanistan in the first place. … Our purpose was to deny the use of Afghan territory to terrorists with global reach. That was, and is, an attainable objective. It is a limited objective that can be achieved at reasonable cost. We must return to a ruthless focus on this objective. We cannot afford to pursue goals, however worthy, that contradict or undermine it. The reform of Afghan politics, society and mores must wait." 

Bob Herbert wrote in a recent New York Times column, "Our interest in Afghanistan is to prevent it from becoming a haven for terrorists bent on attacking us. ... It does not require a wholesale occupation. It does not require the endless funneling of human treasure and countless billions of taxpayer dollars to the Afghan government at the expense of rebuilding the United States, which is falling apart before our very eyes."

And for Obama’s approach to Iraq, the less direct involvement and military presence the United States has in Iraq, the better chance Iraq has to recover, and the better chance the world has to avoid even deeper military conflicts in the region. Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq was a radical act that continues to send destabilizing shockwaves through the Middle East and geopolitics.

Currently, Obama talks about leaving in Iraq only “noncombat” troops, which is as an oxymoronic concept as “clean coal.” As long as U.S. troops remain in Iraq -- and realistically, all indicators point to at least a semi-permanent presence of tens of thousands of soldiers and constant air patrolling -- Iraq will continue to have major internal political problems and problematic relations with neighboring states in the region. 

Mistake III: Settle for a Health Care Plan That Doesn’t Include a Competitive Government-Sponsored 'Medicare for All' Program 

On the campaign trail, Obama hammered away at the need for lowering health care costs and making care accessible and affordable for all Americans. He promised to establish a National Health Insurance Exchange, which would offer a new public insurance plan alongside existing private options.

Obama's a compromiser, but it's crucial for him to avoid compromising away the public arm of his plan, because offering a competitive, government-paid program -- i.e. Medicare for all -- would drive health care costs down and make insurance companies more accountable. It would expose the sins of our overpriced, profit-driven system and, ultimately, create a future opportunity for a universal, single-payer plan, if the political dynamics changed. 

See more stories tagged with: iraq, immigration, water, obama, health care, afghanistan, civil liberties, war on drugs, stimulus, mistakes

Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet. Jan Frel, Senior Managing Editor; Heather Gehlert, Managing Editor; Josh Holland, senior writer; Tara Lohan, Envionment editor and Liliana Segura is Rights and Liberties Editor.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »