Who’s Really Politicizing National Security?
Last week, the Romney campaign made a curious charge, saying, “The Obama campaign is playing politics, just as he’s doing in his conduct of foreign policy.” That charge is curious because the number of national security statements by Romney that run counter to what bipartisan experts, both civilian and military, advocate — and sometimes counter to other statements by Romney. Below are nonpartisan experts’ opinions on Romney’s foreign policy positions, followed by what experts recommend as good policy. As the Washington Post noted, “[I]f Romney becomes president, he will discover that this diplomatic stuff is much harder than it looks.”
Defense Budget
Romney’s political position. As the Boston Globe reports, “Romney’s solution is one of the most far-ranging, expensive, and perhaps least understood of his campaign. He has vowed to commit at least 4 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product – $4 out of every $100 in the nation’s economy – to ‘core’ defense spending, not including many war expenses… Under next year’s budget, defense spending is projected to be about 3.2 percent – yet Romney has stuck by his 4 percent vow. Put another way, that means Romney proposes spending 61 percent more than Obama at the end of a decade-long cycle, according to the libertarian Cato Institute.” As Chris Preble of the Cato Institute wrote last fall, “Romney’s four-percent gimmick is a slogan, not a strategy. Strategy weighs a nation’s ends against its means, and adapts ways to achieve these ends within those resource constraints. A wise strategy also prioritizes the ‘must dos’ from the ‘nice to dos.’” [Boston Globe, 3/19/12. Chris Preble, 10/14/11]
What the experts say. As Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey said late last week about the proposed 2013 defense budget, “We started with a strategy, we mapped it to the budget – it’s just a fresh step.” He also reiterated that the budget was “very much a strategy-driven process,” responding to Congressman Paul Ryan’s charges that military leaders were lying about their support of the budget. [Martin Dempsey via AFPS, 3/29/12]
Nuclear Weapons cuts through New START
Romney’s political position. As NSN wrote last fall, “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.’” [NSN, 11/11]
What the experts say. As President Obama tallied up at the time, “[T]his treaty is supported by both Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. That’s why it’s supported by every living Republican Secretary of State, our NATO allies and the leadership of the United States military. Indeed, the Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hoss Cartwright, said this week that the military needs this treaty, and they need it badly. And that’s why every President since Ronald Reagan has pursued a treaty like START, and every one that has been reviewed by the Senate has passed with strong bipartisan support.” And as Slate’s Fred Kaplan writes, New START and the “reset” achieved broader gains from Russia, “Since Obama’s ‘reset’ policy, Russia has supported the U.S. position on U.N. sanctions against Iran and North Korea. It reversed its decision to sell advanced air-defense radar to Iran, which would have made an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities (should someone launch one) far more difficult. It allowed transit of NATO troops and equipment to Afghanistan, which has allowed us to reduce our reliance on supply routes through Pakistan. And just this week, the Russian energy minister said it would make up oil shortfalls to Europe that might result from the sanctions on Iran.” [Barack Obama, 12/18/10. Fred Kaplan, 3/29/12]
Afghanistan
Romney’s political position. As Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism coordinator at the National Security Council from 1993 to 2001, wrote in the New York Times, “Hardly a debate goes by without one of the Republican candidates criticizing the Obama administration for not siding with the ‘commanders on the ground.’ It’s become a shorthand way to attack the president’s withdrawal of troops from Iraq and planned reduction in forces in Afghanistan. ‘I stand with the commanders,’ Mitt Romney said last month… In countries like Pakistan the president cannot tell the military what to do. Not so in America. But by offering to cede automatically to the will of military commanders, some presidential candidates are telling voters in advance that there is an important part of the president’s job that they are unwilling to perform.” Many of Romney’s positions on Afghanistan have also contradicted the advice of his advisers. As David Ignatius of the Washington Post writes, “Either Romney needs to fire his advisers or he needs to read their work. Or best yet, maybe he needs to be more careful before attacking anything that he thinks he can tag as belonging to the ‘Obama’ administration, and therefore bad. Perhaps when the general election comes around, Romney will find a way to reconnect to the bipartisan consensus about the need, under some circumstances, to ‘negotiate with evil,’ as his adviser [Mitchell] Reiss put it.” [Richard Clarke, 12/12/11. David Ignatius, 1/17/12]
What the experts say. As Caroline Wadhams, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, writes, “[T]he United States should continue to reduce its troop presence in Afghanistan and realign its military and financial investments to more sustainable levels. Current American security interests in Afghanistan are real but indirect, and can be served best through a more limited presence of military advisers and covert special operators.” [Caroline Wadhams, 3/16/12]
Libya
Romney’s political position. Jake Tapper of ABC News took a look at Romney’s various positions on intervention in Libya and found five different stances. Tapper writes, “Have you had any difficulty discerning Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney’s precise position on the US involvement in the NATO mission in Libya? The one consistency has been criticism of President Obama. But beyond that, he’s seemed a bit all over the Libyan map.” [Jake Tapper, 10/20/11]
What the experts say. David Rothkopf, of Foreign Policy Magazine and president of the strategic consulting firm Garten Rothkopf, writes, “It is no insult to lead but let others feel they too are architects of a plan, to lead without making others feel you are bullying, to lead but do so in a way in which risks and other burdens are shared. Libya is a test case for this approach… Outcomes matter most and the outcome here has been low-cost and high-reward. More importantly, perhaps, it solidifies an Obama approach to meeting international threats that seems better suited to America’s current capabilities, comparative advantages, political mood and the preferences of our allies everywhere than prior approaches which were created in and tailored to far different times.” [David Rothkopf, 10/20/11]
Guantanamo
Romney’s political position. Marc Theissen, speechwriter to president George W Bush, described Mitt Romney’s position on detainee matters: “[D]uring the 2008 campaign, Romney went so far as to propose doubling the size of Gitmo… During the current campaign, Romney has continued in this vein.” [Marc Theissen, 1/11/12]
What the experts say. Describing recent legislation that would have made transfers out of Guantanamo more difficult, ensuring Guantanamo Bay would remain open for the foreseeable future, Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar, two retired four-star Marine generals who served as Commandant of the Marine Corps and CENTCOM Commander, respectively, write, “Not only would this bolster Al Qaeda’s recruiting efforts, it also would make it nearly impossible to transfer 88 men (of the 171 held there) who have been cleared for release. We should be moving to shut Guantánamo, not extend it.” [Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar, 12/11/11]
Iran
Romney’s political position: Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post writes, “It is a pretty declarative statement by the former Massachusetts governor: ‘If Barack Obama gets reelected, Iran will have a nuclear weapon and the world will change.’ We can’t fact-check the future, but we can say this with certainty: If Romney becomes president, he will discover that this diplomatic stuff is much harder than it looks. And he will absolutely hate it when Congress tries to get involved in foreign policy issues… Certainly, though, Romney’s prediction about Iran getting a nuclear weapon if Obama is reelected falls into the category of ‘silly-hyperbolic campaign rhetoric.’ Moreover, Romney’s critique of Obama’s handling of Iran is missing important context, even by the standards of campaign fare. Sanctions on Iran have become robust and Tehran is more internationally isolated since Obama took office, in part with the help of Congress, even if the ultimate goal of ending Iran’s nuclear ambitions has not yet been achieved. Meanwhile, the military option is a grave choice — one that Obama’s predecessor never seriously considered.” [Washington Post, 3/6/12]
What the experts say. As columnist Doyle McManus wrote last month: “It’s hard to find a high-ranking U.S. military officer who thinks war with Iran is a good idea.” In a recent letter to President Obama from high-level former national security officials, including a Bush administration National Intelligence Council chairman, a former national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, Colin Powell’s chief of staff and five retired generals: “The U.S. military is the most formidable military force on earth. But not every challenge has a military solution… Preventing a nuclear armed Iran is rightfully your priority and your red line. Fortunately, diplomacy has not been exhausted and peaceful solutions are still possible. Military action at this stage is not only unnecessary, it is dangerous – for the United States and for Israel. We urge you to resist the pressure for a war of choice with Iran.” [LA Times, 3/4/12. Letter from former military and intelligence officials, 3/5/12]
What We’re Reading
Anti-government fighters recovered the bodies of 78 people, allegedly tortured to death, at a hospital in the Syrian city of Homs.
UNICEF is initiating a 24-hour social media campaign to raise awareness about the food crisis in Africa, where the United Nations estimates that more than 10 million people are at risk of starving to death.
U.S. military investigators may soon visit the Afghan villages where an American soldier is purported to have shot and killed 17 civilians.
The United States will offer as much as $10 million for information that could lead to the arrest of a Pakistani man alleged to have been the mastermind of the 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai.
Colombia’s FARC rebels have released their last 10 hostages, some of whom were held for 14 years.
The International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva said its president would visit Damascus to call for a daily two-hour halt of violence to help evacuate wounded civilians and deliver aid.
Plans by the British government to grant the intelligence and security services the ability to monitor communications of everyone in the country drew intense criticism from rights activists.
Yemeni strikes on al Qaeda hideouts killed 43 militants.
West African countries imposed economic sanctions on Mali’s ruling military junta, citing insufficient strides towards reinstituting democratic rule.
Japan’s trade minister announced that the country needs more time to decide whether to restart two offline nuclear reactors.
Commentary of the Day
Wesley Clark calls for “clear thinking, solid planning and a well-supported international strategy” for the Middle East before engaging in war in Syria.
Richard A. Clarke claims it is critical that President Obama take precautions to protect America’s companies from Chinese cyberthreats.
Susan Shaer advocates careful scrutiny of an oversized Pentagon budget that spends on last century’s security strategy.
