From time to time on the campaign trail, Sen. Obama attempts to create a linkage between the costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom and an economic downturn at home. This is the similar convoluted logic that's spun by left wing organizations such as MoveOn.org.

Obama's reasoning is often based on hyperbole rather than sound facts on the ground, which translates into an erroneous assumption. The primary mission of Congress and the Executive is to maintain a strong national defense and intelligence infrastructure that can protect our cherished liberties. Almost all other federal functions could be carried out more effectively at the state or local levels, or through private enterprises.

There are a number of reasons why this liberal perspective of Obama is highly flawed. First, military conflicts don't cause slowdowns in the economy; instead, they often stimulate the economy. Dispatching the armed forces on a mission creates jobs and generates spending on armaments and support services.

Not all of these employment positions are financed by our tax dollars. Private sector contractors and subcontractors invest in, and spend money on military missions and security operations. They are also involved with diplomatic efforts, reconstruction projects, and training. In addition, U.S. troops spend money abroad, and in communities that interact with military bases.

Next, most domestic government programs are grossly inefficient because they aren't based on a bottom line profit. Programs lose funds if allocated budgets aren't spent each fiscal year. Consequently, many redundant programs continue year after year, which means more regulations and burdensome taxes. Reckless government spending, combined with deficits and a national debt, play a large role in putting a brake on economic growth. When folks are regulated and taxed to death, they are less motivated to finance business expansion, and are apt to save and spend less of their earnings.

An Obama in the Oval Office could very well spur a further nosedive in the economy, if he raised taxes to create an array of nanny state programs subsidized by middle class and wealthy Americans. Who wants to invest, save, or spend in an economy where taxes go through the roof?

Third, other factors can create boom and bust cycles that are unhealthy in a mature democracy. Companies and individuals often make poor investment decisions based on lifestyle, greed, and/or incomplete information. These actions can trigger debt in many sectors of the market, which drains energy away from capital investments, healthy spending, and consumer confidence. In this atmosphere, moderate to long-term investing, saving, and spending patterns can head south.

Fourth, when the Feds attempt to bail out businesses and individuals that make poor economic decisions, it is just executing a redistribution scheme. Economic stimulus plans take your tax dollars from one area to "rescue" qualifying families. That does little to create employment, or strengthen the economy. It also discourages autonomy, and encourages a dysfunctional dependence on government solutions. Couple that with constant deficit spending on domestic programs, and you can take it to the bank that recessionary trends will emerge.

Fifth, it's unlikely that the progress underway in Iraq contributes to a tailspin in the economy. To date, this war has cost far less as a share of GNP than most prior wars in American history. Moreover, the casualty figures are much lower than previous wars. That means that in modern warfare, advanced operational methods can get to the bad guys with less collateral damage on all sides.

Today, there is more representative governance in Iraq, and Iraqi security forces are assuming greater responsibility for defending Iraq's sovereignty. Moreover, rebuilding efforts are moving forward as reconciliation gradually occurs at local and regional levels of society.

Wouldn't it make sense if most Americans and senators were optimistic about progress, and would vote for success in Iraq? The voluntary armed forces of the coalition, and the Iraqis want to complete the mission in a challenging environment. A successful outcome in Iraq would have a positive impact on the region, while failure would adversely effect regional economics, security, and stability.

So it isn't the war in Iraq that pushes certain areas of the economy into the doldrums. It is a combination of government deficit spending, business and individual debt, inflation, rising interest rates, fluctuations in the value of commodities, services, and so on. If Congress reduced the debt, balanced the budget every year, and folks made smarter financial decisions, the free markets would operate more efficiently in fostering robust prosperity. Candidate Obama ought to study up on Economics 101.