2012: A Turning Point
This election year marks an important moment in the American political story. For decades, progressives have suffered from the “security gap,” where conservatives were viewed as stronger on foreign policy while progressives were stronger at home. But public opinion and elite commentary both confirm that the gap is gone. As Slate national security columnist Fred Kaplan put it, “the Democratic party is now the party of national-security policy; not just a wise or thoughtful foreign and military policy, but any kind of thinking whatsoever about matters beyond the water’s edge.” Regardless of who wins the presidential election, the American people spoke clearly in favor of progressive and pragmatic policies – and by the end of the campaign, both candidates had endorsed very similar pragmatic approaches on some, though not all, issues.
This pragmatic, results-oriented approach has garnered bipartisan support. As Colin Powell, who served as Secretary of State in the Bush administration, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and National Security Advisor to President Reagan, recently said, “I also saw the president get us out of one war, start to get us out of a second war and did not get us into any new wars. And finally I think that the actions he has taken with respect to protecting us from terrorism have been very solid. And so, I think we ought to keep on the track that we are on.” Conservatives have been beset with outdated worldviews, internal divisions and external incoherence, leading Powell to comment: “I’m not quite sure which Gov. Romney we would be getting with respect to foreign policy.”
A RESULTS-ORIENTED PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE WORLD
Killing Osama bin Laden and taking the fight to al Qaeda. John Brennan, the career CIA officer who is the White House advisor on counterterrorism explains that the raid that killed Osama bin Laden is just part of the overall success against al Qaeda: “We have affected al-Qa’ida’s ability to attract new recruits. We’ve made it harder for them to hide and transfer money, and pushed al-Qa’ida’s finances to its weakest point in years. Along with our partners, in Pakistan and Yemen, we’ve shown al-Qa’ida that it will enjoy no safe haven, and we have made it harder than ever for them to move, to communicate, to train, and to plot. Al-Qa’ida’s leadership ranks have been decimated, with more key leaders eliminated in rapid succession than at any time since 9/11.” [John Brennan, 6/29/11]
Isolating Iran: U.S. leadership, technical setbacks and unified diplomatic efforts have put Iran under unprecedented pressure. Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution explains how the Obama administration’s work with the international community to isolate Iran is paying off. She writes, “An extensive early effort by the Obama administration to engage Tehran in negotiations helped persuade reluctant European allies to adopt unprecedented sanctions on trade and investment in Iran’s energy sector when these negotiations failed.” Meanwhile, “Israel’s defense minister said Tuesday that the country had interpreted Iran’s conversion of some enriched uranium to fuel rods for civilian use as evidence that Iran had delayed ambitions to build a nuclear weapon,” reports the New York Times. [Suzanne Maloney,9/16/11. NY Times, 10/30/12]
Ending the combat mission in Iraq. With U.S. combat troops fully withdrawn from Iraq last December, a campaign promise was kept and, after years of effort, a failed strategy was replaced with one that better serves core American interests. Challenges remain, but these are problems that demand Iraqi-led solutions. [NSN, 8/31/10]
Beginning transition in Afghanistan. With successes against al Qaeda and the death of Osama bin Laden, President Obama has realigned America’s commitment in Afghanistan with our interests, including withdrawing the 33,000 U.S. “surge” troops and a plan to remove all combat troops by 2014. As Brian Katulis and Jed Ober explain, “For the past 18 months, the Obama administration has rightly pressed a strategy of transition in Afghanistan—reducing the U.S. military presence and encouraging Afghan responsibility.” [Brian Katulis and Jed Ober, 8/12. NSN, 6/11]
Managing China’s rise. Nina Hachigian of the Center for American Progress and Jacob Stokes write, “President Obama’s Asia strategy, which is deepening partnerships and engagement in the region, is designed to ensure that as China grows it contributes to peace and stability and follows the rules of the international system. At the same time the administration does not let differences prevent the United States from working with Beijing on important joint challenges such as North Korea’s nuclear program and clean energy.” [Nina Hachigian and Jacob Stokes, 3/13/12]
Working to keep America’s promises to veterans. The Washington Monthly notes that the Obama administration “increased 2010 Department of Veterans Affairs budget by 16 percent and 2011 budget by 10 percent. [The President ] Also signed new GI bill offering $78 billion in tuition assistance over a decade, and provided multiple tax credits to encourage businesses to hire veterans.” [Washington Monthly, 3/12]
Re-engaging with America’s allies. Douglas Paal of the Carnegie Endowment writes, “after more than a decade of reduced U.S. attention… Japan has abandoned its flirtation with balancing its relationship with the United States and China. South Korea’s ties with the United States are stronger than ever. And Southeast Asian sentiment clearly favors the United States to continue to be a counterbalance to China’s increasingly overweening influence, welcoming its presence but also not looking for a fight with China.” Israeli President Shimon welcomed General Martin Dempsey to Israel this week saying, “I want to thank you for the profound cooperation between the American armed forces and our own. The cooperation is at the highest level and is at its best. The absolute friendship is an important strength to deter danger and to face our enemies.” And regarding Europe, Doug Wilson, Spencer Boyer and James Lamond explain: “The reality is that the United States and Europe have rarely, if ever, been more in sync in terms of our overall strategic goals and the methods by which we seek to achieve them.” [Douglas Paal, 12/6/11. Shimon Peres, 10/30/12. Doug Wilson, Spencer Boyer and James Lamond, 10/9/12]
Taking a pragmatic approach to the Arab Uprisings that addresses U.S. interests in both the short and long term. Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, explains, “Overall, the Obama administration has developed effective responses to the political transitions that began in 2011 in the Middle East… Measured against his predecessor, President Barack Obama has done a much more effective job overall advancing U.S. national security interests in the Middle East… The Obama administration has rightly avoided any ‘one size fits all’ approach to the region—much to the consternation of ideologues on all sides of the spectrum.” [Brian Katulis, 9/27/12]
ON THE ISSUES, CONSERVATIVES INCREASINGLY ADOPT THE POSITIONS OF PROGRESSIVES
Afghanistan: As David Shorr, of NSN’s Democracy Arsenal, writes in the Des Moine Register today, “For instance, there are still 68,000 American troops fighting in Afghanistan. Both presidential candidates support the same timeline to draw down this combat force, after Romney dropped his previous strong objections to setting a withdrawal date.” [David Shorr, 11/1/12]
Iran: Spencer Ackerman of Wired writes that “more often than not, Romney accepts the policy framework that Obama created. On Iran, he’ll propose ‘new sanctions’ and to ‘tighten the sanctions we currently have,’ which is the cornerstone of Obama’s Iran policy (along with cyberattacks).” [Spencer Ackerman, 10/8/12]
Syria: Romney has said that, “We should be working …vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran—rather than sitting on the sidelines.” Yet, this is simply endorsing what is already underway. The Cable reports that the Obama administration has worked secretly for months to build a more representative and effective umbrella opposition group. Reuters reports, “U.S. government had set aside a total of $25 million for ‘non-lethal’ assistance to the Syrian opposition. A U.S. official said that was mostly for communications equipment, including encrypted radios…” additionally as Ackerman writes, “the CIA is on the Turkey-Syrian border trying to sort out which Syrian rebels are worth funneling foreign weapons to.” [The Cable, 10/31/12. Reuters, 8/1/12. Spencer Ackerman, 10/8/12]
Libya: Romney changed his position on the U.S.-led Libya intervention to be on the right side of success. By last October, ABC’s Jake Tapper counted five different positions that Mitt Romney had taken on Libya, transitioning from “mission creep and mission muddle” to “the world is a better place with Gadhafi gone,” as USA Today reported in a fact-check. [USA Today, 10/23/12. Jake Tapper, 10/20/11]
THE ALTERNATIVE IS A FAILED WORLD VIEW, OVERHEATED RHETORIC AND AN INABILITY TO SET FORWARD-LOOKING PRIORITIES
A Pentagon-first budget that doesn’t add up. Governor Romney has been unable to outline how he would pay for his military plus-ups, or what strategic ends they would serve. The hallmark of Romney’s proposed foreign policy is to increase Pentagon spending to 4% of GDP, which has been estimated to cost $2.1 trillion over the next decade. But as the Washington Post notes, “Given his unwillingness to contemplate tax increases or other revenue measures, military spending is one more area where Mr. Romney’s math doesn’t add up.” [Washington Post, 10/18/12]
Nor do Romney’s proposed Pentagon plus-ups come with a strategy. Former Secretary of the Navy, Richard Danzig, explains, “Governor Romney has said ‘I’ll invest 4% GDP in defense.’ It has nothing to do with strategy. It has nothing to do with balancing our strength. It’s just a number out of the air. It’s as though we’ve moved from etch-a-sketch to paint by numbers.” On the proposal to spend 4% of GDP on defense former Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy, has said, “It’s simply ‘Let’s throw a figure against the wall and look tough on defense.’” As the New York Times reports, the costs would be staggering: “the Pentagon’s base budget is $525 billion…By 2022, Mr. Obama’s projected annual base Pentagon budget would be $629 billion. Mr. Romney’s military budget… would be $986 billion.” [Richard Danzig via Defense News, 10/12. Michele Flournoy via NY Times, 10/20/12. NY Times, 10/20/12]
Failure to recognize the breadth of American power. In focusing almost exclusively on Pentagon spending, Romney’s foreign policy strategy fails to consider the role of American diplomatic power entirely. As Gordon Adams, former manager of the national security budget in the Clinton administration and fellow at the Stimson Center, explains, “I don’t know Romney’s position on foreign assistance, I don’t know it on AIDS or global health, I don’t know it on economic support funds or security assistance funding…This is just sort of a blank space, details to be determined.” But there are even more worrying signs. The budget proposed by Paul Ryan earlier this year sought dramatic cuts – 10 percent in one year – to the State Department. At the time of the proposal, US News and World Report explained, “Ryan’s plan would cut foreign affairs spending from $47.8 billion in 2012 to $43 billion in 2013. Ryan wants to shrink those funds, used for the State Department and for development work in other nations, until 2016, when it would bottom out at $38 billion.” [Gordon Adams via Mother Jones, 10/22/12. US News and World Report, 3/23/12]
Cold War mentality. Romney continues to apply outdated thinking to the challenges and prospects of the 21st century. When Romney called Russia our “number one geopolitical foe,” Colin Powell responded: “C’mon, Mitt…think! That isn’t the case… There is no pure competitor to the United States of America.” But Romney’s Russia policies are just the tip of the backward-thinking-iceberg. Justin Vaisse of Brookings notes that, “a posture of uncompromising hawkishness (Iran), toughness (Russia, China), or conditionality (Egypt; foreign aid) vis-à-vis the rest of the world –what James Traub dubbed the ‘more enemies, fewer friends doctrine’ – might not be the most effective way to fulfill America’s objectives. This is all the more true that America’s resources will necessarily be strained in the next four years, and that the issue of the debt will loom large.” [Colin Powell via MSNBC, 5/23/12. Justin Vaisse, 10/8/12]
Playing bad politics with tragedy. After the tragic killing of four Americans in Benghazi, the New York Times observes that “Republican lawmakers leading the charge on Capitol Hill,” over the death of American diplomats in Benghazi “seem more interested in attacking President Obama than in formulating an effective response. It doesn’t take a partisan to draw that conclusion. The ugly truth is that the same people who are accusing the administration of not providing sufficient security for the American consulate in Benghazi have voted to cut the State Department budget, which includes financing for diplomatic security. The most self-righteous critics don’t seem to get the hypocrisy, or maybe they do and figure that if they hurl enough doubts and complaints at the administration, they will deflect attention from their own poor judgments on the State Department’s needs.” [NY Times, 10/14/1]
Failure to prioritize Afghanistan and veterans. Both Afghanistan and veterans have barely factored in Romney’s national security message, including his lengthy speech at the RNC. As conservative icon Bill Kristol noted in the Weekly Standard, “The United States has some 68,000 troops fighting in Afghanistan. Over two thousand Americans have died in the more than ten years of that war, a war Mitt Romney has supported. Yet in his speech accepting his party’s nomination to be commander in chief, Mitt Romney said not a word about the war in Afghanistan. Nor did he utter a word of appreciation to the troops fighting there, or to those who have fought there. Nor for that matter was there thanks for those who fought in Iraq, another conflict that went unmentioned.” Romney responded later, “When you give a speech, you don’t go through a laundry list. You talk about the things that you think are important…” [William Kristol, 8/31/12. Policy Mic, 9/10/12. Politico, 9/9/12]
Recklessly threatening to declare China a currency manipulator. Romney has repeatedly threatened to label China a currency manipulator “on day one,” which would risk a trade war with the world’s second largest economy. Bloomberg News has explained this would be counterproductive, “What little leverage the U.S. has over China will disappear if Romney approves the manipulator moniker, an act that China will interpret as an attack. This helps explain why, under President Barack Obama, the U.S. has refrained from doing so. Instead, Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner have opted to negotiate, mostly behind the scenes, with China. The strategy appears to be working. Since Obama took office, the Yuan has appreciated about 11 percent against the dollar.” Furthermore, Romney’s hard line on China ignores the realities of US-Chinese interdependence. As the Washington Post explains, “the U.S. and Chinese economies are far too deeply intertwined to risk a trade war over currency imbalances that are gradually adjusting through peaceful means.” [Bloomberg, 10/17/12. Washington Post, 10/17/12]
What We’re Reading
A jailed Tunisian man is “strongly suspected” of being involved in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans.
The Obama administration has spent months in secret diplomatic negotiations aimed at building a new Syrian opposition leadership structure that could win support of groups still backing Bashar al-Assad.
An Iranian opposition group reported that nine female political prisoners have gone on hunger strike to protest abuse by prison guards.
An Iraqi court handed down a second death sentence to the country’s Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi.
Authorities in Kuwait warned that they will use harsher measures to crack down on anti-government demonstrators defying bans on protest gatherings.
Russia brought into force a law that aims to protect children from harmful internet content, but critics say it may increase censorship.
China proposed new initiatives to end the violence in Syria, including a phased, region-by-region ceasefire and the establishment of a transitional governing body.
Sri Lanka’s government started the process to impeach the country’s chief justice, accusing her of overstepping her limits amid a drawn-out conflict between the government and the judiciary.
The Italian Parliament approved regulations meant to address extravagant misuse of public funds and other scandals that have added to the anger in the financially ailing nation.
A new report warns of the negative consequences for the U.S. military of extreme weather events.
Commentary of the Day
Walter Pincus examines how domestic politics in Israel, Iran and the U.S. may affect the debate over nuclear Iran.
Liz Sly investigates the fighting between Kurds and Arabs in Syria.
Graham Bowley discusses the emergence of Taliban fighters into remote Bamian province, once regarded as a safe territory.
