Before Debate, What You Need To Know about Conservative Foreign Policy
Before Debate, What You Need To Know about Conservative Foreign Policy
Tonight, President Obama and Governor Romney face off in their final debate of this campaign season, which is dedicated to national security and foreign policy. A common narrative of this year’s election is that progressives now dominate the ground on national security because of a results-oriented, pragmatic approach that has been implemented over the past several years. Last week NSN outlined why. Today, we explore why conservatives have flopped on the issue.
After five years of running for president, two primaries, dozens of speeches, two debates with the president of the United States and a book, America still does not know where Mitt Romney stands on the key foreign policy and national security issues of the day. He has offered strong rhetoric and sweeping criticisms, promising to “just look at the things the president has done and do the opposite” – without offering alternative solutions. The specific policies he has offered seem in practice to accept many current policies. As Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress writes, “His bombastic rhetoric masks a thin policy agenda cooked up by a team of advisers who, when they were in power, helped undermine America’s power and credibility around the world… On substance, Romney offers no specific alternative to the tough internationalism of the Obama administration.”
Romney: Reckless Rhetoric and Hot Headed Responses
“[N]o experience dealing with terrorism crisis management”: Richard Clarke former White House Counterterrorism Czar recently wrote: “Mitt Romney seems fixated on why Washington did not know with better clarity and sooner what went on during a terrorist attack. It is the kind of question that comes from someone who has no experience dealing with terrorism crisis management or, indeed, combat. I dealt with scores of incidents and military operations over 30 years in the Pentagon, State Department and White House. I never saw a case where there was initial and accurate clarity about what happened.” [Richard Clarke, 10/17/12]
“Spoiling for a bar fight”: “Though in policies and plans, Romney offers nothing to distinguish himself from the President, in tenor and tone, he carries a neoconservative shtick. Let’s start with language. Whether he talks about Middle East security or trade with China, Romney’s instinct is to shout louder, rattle a bigger saber or hint that he would start more wars. His idea of projecting strength is to talk like a frat boy spoiling for a bar fight,” writes Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in yesterday’s New York Daily News. [NYDY, 10/21/12]
“[T]ry to score easy political points”: Steve Schmidt, who served as senior campaign strategist and advisor to John McCain’s 2008 campaign, discussed Romney’s response to violence at our Middle East embassies saying, “The comments were a big mistake, and the decision to double down on them was an even bigger mistake… There are legitimate criticisms to be made but you foreclose on your ability to make them when you try to score easy political points. And the American people, when the country is attacked, whether they’re a Republican or Democrat or independent, want to see leaders who have measured responses, not leaders whose first instinct is to try to score political points.” [CBS, 9/13/12]
ON THE ISSUES: FLIP-FLOPS, MISLEADING AND JUST PLAIN GETS THE FACTS WRONG
Arguing for an Iran policy he says he disagrees with: In June Mitt Romney told a conservative audience, “I think, by and large, you can just look at the things the president has done and do the opposite.” However, he has repeatedly called for “crippling sanctions” and a “credible military threat” against Iran, both of which have already been put in place by the Obama administration. Alireza Nader of RAND explains, “Not until the Obama administration had Iran faced sanctions with serious bite. The administration has managed to build a wide and deep international coalition against Iran… These developments had had a major impact on both Iran’s economy, and potentially its nuclear decision-making.” And Defense News reports, “In a rare and candid public review of Washington’s Iran strategy, [former Undersecretary of Defense Michele] Flournoy noted that more than 40,000 U.S. troops are positioned in the region, with two carrier strike groups deployed in the Arabian Gulf. Such military presence is part of a carefully timed strategy that, through the coming months, will continue to focus on a combination of increasingly crippling sanctions and diplomacy.” [Mitt Romney, 6/16/12. Mitt Romney via Think Progress, 9/14/11. Alireza Nader, 9/25/12. Michele Flournoy via Defense News, 6/4/12]
Ignoring reality in favor of bluster on terrorism: In an effort to scaremonger, Romney has said, “the threats we face have grown so much worse.” However, the fact is that while it remains a threat to be taken seriously, terrorism has declined. In its most recent report on global terrorism, the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) stated, “The total number of worldwide attacks in 2011, however, dropped by almost 12 percent from 2010 and nearly 29 percent from 2007,” and that the 2011 numbers represent a five-year low. Terrorism experts Brian Fishman and Phillip Mudd explain the current state of al Qaeda : “al Qaeda’s core organization in Pakistan is battered, the effort to spur homegrown jihadists in the West has faltered, and its regional affiliates are more often losing ground than gaining it.” [NCTC, 3/12/12. Brian Fishman and Phillip Mudd, 2/24/12]
Agreeing to disagree on Afghanistan: Romney says, “I will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014,” but implies he would change from the current course in some way when he adds, “I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders.” But this amounts to noise with little in the way of clear differences with the present course. As Spencer Ackerman explains, “Romney doesn’t like Obama’s 2014 timetable for ending U.S. combat in Afghanistan (a ‘politically timed retreat,’ Romney calls it), but, again, he’ll say he’ll stick to it while ‘evaluat[ing] conditions on the ground,’ something less than a pledge to stay longer. But since Obama isn’t leaving Afghanistan after 2014, either, finding distinctions on Afghanistan is like counting angels on the head of a pin.” [Romney, 10/8/12. Spencer Ackerman, 10/8/12]
Flip flopping on Middle East Peace Process: In public, Romney has said, “I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel.” Yet, this was a major reversal from previous, off the record comments. While Speaking to private group of campaign funders, Romney made his real views disturbing clear:”[S]o what you do is, you say, you move things along the best way you can. You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem…and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.” [Mitt Romney via NYT, 10/8/12. David Corn, 9/18/12]
Nuclear competence: Romney said on video that “if I were Iran—a crazed fanatic, I’d say let’s get a little fissile material to Hezbollah, have them carry it to Chicago or some other place, and then if anything goes wrong, or America starts acting up, we’ll just say, ‘Guess what? Unless you stand down, why, we’re going to let off a dirty bomb.’” But as David Corn immediately pointed out, “Romney didn’t appear to understand that a dirty bomb—an explosive device that spreads radioactive substances—does not require fissile material from a nuclear weapons program.”
As nuclear weapons expert Joe Cirincione explains, “The main reason we are so concerned about Iran is that its uranium-enrichment facilities could produce the fissile material needed to make a nuclear bomb. Anyone running for the highest office in the land simply must know the basics about dirty bombs, nuclear weapons, and the threat from Iran. This video does not help Gov. Romney prove that he does.” Steve Clemens, editor at The Atlantic, points out that his raises troubling leadership questions, “Let’s think the unthinkable for a moment. If Governor Romney got that 3 am call and learned that a dirty bomb had been successfully deployed in a US city, or perhaps in Israel or another ally, would he launch a nuclear weapon in retaliation? These questions matter — and it’s not clear that Romney has the wherewithal at the moment to understand the responsibilities the US President carries for globlal nuclear stewardship.” [Mitt Romney via Mother Jones, 9/18/12. Joe Cirincione, 9/18/12. Steve Cemens 9/19/12]
Ignoring facts on international trade: Mitt Romney has claimed that President Barack Obama “has not signed one new free-trade agreement in the past four years.” However, as a CNN fact check points out, “it is not accurate to assert that Obama has not signed any free trade agreements when, in fact, he has done so with South Korea, Panama and Colombia.” [CNN, 10/21/12]
On Syria, rhetorical bluster, practical agreement: 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, as 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 Spencer Ackerman of WIRED explains, “the CIA is on the Turkey-Syrian border trying to sort out which Syrian rebels are worth funneling foreign weapons to — a difficult proposition at best — and, as the New York Times‘ David Sanger points out, Romney stops short of promising American weapons to the rebels.” [Reuters, 8/1/12. Spencer Ackerman, 10/8/12]
Out of touch world view Leads to Reckless policies and rhetoric
Pentagon spending:
Costly, militarized approaches to national security lack strategic thinking. Conservative leaders have yet to explain how to pay for Mitt Romney’s proposed $2 trillion dollar Pentagon increase or its strategic rationale. 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.” [Richard Danzig via Defense News, 10/12]
“Uncompromising hawkishness” is not effective or affordable. 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.” [Justin Vaisse, 10/8/12]
Conservative leaders continue to avoid the economic foundations of American power against the wishes of top advisors. Senior advisors within the GOP have joined bipartisan calls for a balanced approach, to no avail. Robert Zoellick, a senior member of the Romney campaign, explains, “Earlier this year, Bob Carr, Australia’s foreign minister and a longtime friend of the United States, observed with Aussie clarity: ‘The United States is one budget deal away from restoring its global preeminence.’… Carr’s insight — that the connection between economics and security will determine America’s future — is sound and persuasive.” [Robert Zoellick,11/12]
Declaring Russia to be America’s top enemy in the world. When Romney called Russia our “number one geopolitical foe,” Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State, responded: “C’mon, Mitt…think! That isn’t the case. And I don’t know whether Mitt really feels that or…It’s been catching a lot of heck from regular GOP foreign affairs community. We were kind of taken aback by it. Look at the world. There is no pure competitor to the United States of America.” [Colin Powell via MSNBC, 5/23/12]
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].
Rejecting Policies Broadly accepted by Bipartisan And Nonprtisan leaders
Opposition to New START Treaty. Mitt Romney chose to oppose the New START treaty with Russia, which enjoyed a level of bipartisan support from experts and experienced national security figures that is practically unheard of in today’s politics. Nuclear weapons expert and Slate magazine columnist Fred Kaplan excoriated Romney’s column on the subject, saying, “In 35 years of following debates over nuclear arms control, I have never seen anything quite as shabby, misleading and let’s not mince words – thoroughly ignorant as Mitt Romney’s attack on the New START treaty.” No less than Brent Scowcroft, a staunch Republican who was national security advisor for Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, called the opposition “baffling” and noted that “to play politics with what is in the fundamental national interest is pretty scary stuff.” Adm. Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) “essential to our future security.” [Fred Kaplan, 3/29/12. Brent Scowcroft, 12/20/10. Michael Mullen via Washington Post, 11/19/20
Supporting torture and doubling Guantanamo. The New York Times reports, “Mr. Romney’s advisers have privately urged him to ‘rescind and replace President Obama’s executive order’ and permit secret ‘enhanced interrogation techniques against high-value detainees that are safe, legal and effective in generating intelligence to save American lives,’ according to an internal Romney campaign memorandum. While the memo is a policy proposal drafted by Mr. Romney’s advisers in September 2011, and not a final decision by him, its detailed analysis dovetails with his rare and limited public comments about interrogation.” During his unsuccessful 2008 run for president, Romney said, “Some people say that we should close Guantanamo, my view is we outta double Guantanamo.”
These extreme policies go against the advice of America’s top military and national security leaders. General Colin Powell (ret.), former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and secretary of state in the George W. Bush administration says, “I think Guantanamo has cost us a lot over the years in terms of our standing in the world and the way in which despots have hidden behind what we have at Guantanamo to justify their own– their own positions… And so I think we ought to remove this incentive that exists in the presence of Guantanamo to encourage people and to give radicals an opportunity to say, you see, this is what America is all about. They’re all about torture and detention centers.” General Charles C. Krulak (ret.) former Commandant of the Marine Corps, and General Joseph P. Hoar (ret.), former CETCOM commander: “We should be moving to shut Guantánamo, not extend it.” [NY Times, 9/27/12. Mitt Romney, 5/15/07. Colin Powell via CBS, 2/21/10. Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar, 12/13/11]
TROUBLE SETTING PRIORITIES
Despite calls from his own party, veterans and Afghanistan don’t make the “laundry list” of “important” subjects to discuss. Governor Romney has been widely criticized for omitting both veterans and the war in Afghanistan from his the campaign. Following his lengthy speech at the RNC convention 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 were 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…” Later, Romney claimed he had put forward his Afghanistan policy at the American Legion the day before his RNC speech – apparently referring to the few sentences that Politico described as “In a 16-minute speech, he devoted, at most, 15 or 16 seconds to Afghanistan.” [William Kristol,8/31/12. Policy Mic, 9/10/12. Politico, 9/9/12]
Keeping promises to veterans. Earlier this year, Gov. Romney spoke before the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the country’s largest organization of combat veterans. Romney had an opportunity to recognize and lay out responses to the challenges facing veterans, active-duty service members, and families yet failed to. In response to the speech, Jon Soltz co-founder and chairman of VoteVets.org, said, “I think under no circumstance at all did Governor Romney address any real issues… It’s rather offensive that someone who thinks they should be president can stand up in front of a group of veterans and not talk about a veterans’ issue. We’re not tools. We’re not props for politicians. We’re people that have real problems… You stand up there and talk about leaks from the White House and not about how there’s a suicide epidemic for returning veterans.” [Jon Soltz,7/25/12]
What We’re Reading
Pro-government militias battled fighters in a former stronghold of the late Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi in the fifth straight day of clashes that have killed at least 30 people.
Riots erupted after a funeral for the intelligence chief whose assassination has plunged Lebanon into its worst crisis in years.
China’s top leaders have asked policy think-tanks to draw up their most ambitious economic reform proposals in decades – potentially curbing the power of state firms and loosening interest rates and the yuan currency.
South Korean police blocked a civic group from sending pro-democracy leaflets across the border by balloon, an unexpected stand-down after North Korea threatened the activists with a “merciless military strike.”
Russian investigators say a detained anti-Kremlin activist has admitted trying to foment riots with funding from a Georgian MP.
French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault has announced new measures to tackle organized crime in Corsica.
Police fired teargas in Kosovo on Monday to disperse opposition activists demonstrating against a new push by the European Union to improve ties between Serbia and its former southern province.
The Colombian army says five soldiers have been killed by FARC rebels, in the first major incident since peace negotiations were launched.
Argentina has ordered over 300 sailors to evacuate the navy training ship which was seized by the Ghanaian authorities in a debt dispute.
Guinea-Bissau’s latest coup attempt appears to have been fomented in Portugal and led by a soldier who sought exile in the European country after allegedly carrying out the 2009 assassination of Guinea-Bissau’s former president.
Several Nigerian soldiers have been killed by suspected Islamist militants in the north-eastern town of Potiskum.
Commentary of the Day
Michael Lumbers discusses how the presidential candidates must view Iran.
William Tobey claims that U.S.-Russian nuclear arms cooperation is not dead.
