Anyone who worried Mitt Romney would be overly cautious or avoid taking strong stances during his foreign policy speech today was proved wrong. Romney delivered a substantive critique of Obama’s Middle-East policy, and outlined his own strategy, including some bold positions on Syria and Afghanistan. The best soundbite of the speech, “hope is not a strategy,” will surely be a theme the campaign hammers home between now and the election. This is more than a catchy line; it’s an encapsulation of Obama’s Middle-East policy. In the Arab-Spring countries, democracy needs to be guided, supported, and encouraged. And yet Obama has seemed reluctant to use U.S. influence on this front.
Today’s speech indicated that this would be very different under a Romney administration:
America can take pride in the blows that our military and intelligence professionals have inflicted on Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the killing of Osama bin Laden. These are real achievements won at a high cost. But Al-Qaeda remains a strong force in Yemen and Somalia, in Libya and other parts of North Africa, in Iraq, and now in Syria. And other extremists have gained ground across the region. Drones and the modern instruments of war are important tools in our fight, but they are no substitute for a national security strategy for the Middle East.
I know the President hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States. I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity.
On Afghanistan, which Obama characterized as the “important” war during the 2008 campaign, but never seemed fully committed to, Romney indicated that he would follow conditions on the ground rather than political timelines:
And in Afghanistan, I will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014. President Obama would have you believe that anyone who disagrees with his decisions in Afghanistan is arguing for endless war. But the route to more war – and to potential attacks here at home – is a politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country and used it to launch the attacks of 9/11. I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders. And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation.
In Syria, Romney said he would arm the anti-Assad forces, and explained why U.S. involvement there is critical in terms of our values and strategic interests regarding Iran. He also noted that it’s important to show our support for the Syrians fighting the Assad regime is more than just words.
In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran—rather than sitting on the sidelines. It is essential that we develop influence with those forces in Syria that will one day lead a country that sits at the heart of the Middle East.
Romney also rejected a policy of “daylight” between Israel and the U.S., committed himself to the peace process and a future Palestinian state, and reiterated his red line on Iran (nuclear capability). The speech was well-delivered, too. The debate performance seems to have given Romney a new boost of confidence, and the fact that he’s catching up in the polls made the speech seem weightier than it might have seemed only a few weeks ago.
Boo hiss on the Palestinians, whom it seems can commit no atrocity egregious enough to get themselves written off as legitimate parties. Lip service, I know, but still . . . . n nAs for Syria, Romney sounded a bit too much like Max Boot, but over all, like Kramer and the hot coffee lawsuit, 'I'll take it!'
The United States has to arm the region's Bahai's! They maintain their central shrine in Haifa, are renown for teaching diversity and tolerance, and their faith is based on an unwavering core of peace and non-violence!!! Wait a minute….
Sorry to break the flow, but did I hallucinate? Didn't Max Boot post something on this(and I responded to it)?
yes he did! yes you did! and one or two other comments disappeared with Max's blog post when it went away. a glitch in the space-time-Boot continuum
Of course you did, and you're just another right-wing crazy if you believe you didn't. You probably also believe that Obama is the worst president since the Paleozoic. n nEither that or it's time to re-Boot the system.
I question if the comment editor will allow a dissenting opinion in these comments. Prove me wrong and show the courage of your own convictions. Otherwise send me your excuse for not doing so. n nNot a single specific by Romney how he would be any different than Obama. Hope isn't a strategy, neither is what Romney has said. n n"Drones and the modern instruments of war are important tools in our fight, but they are no substitute for a national security strategy for the Middle East." n nThis sounds good until you think what the options are. Why is the US using drones and, to be more precise than Romney, special operations? The other option to smaller scale operations is the failed Iraq and Afghan model of large money and casualty commitments. There is little support for larger commitments and Romney doesn't make the case his examples require larger scale commitments. n n n"And in Afghanistan, I will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014." n nRomney isn't saying he will change anything, the US is already leaving with trainers left behind in 2014. This is typical Romney, saying Obama is wrong but agreeing with him and never saying how his Afghan policy would be different. n n"In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets." n nGood luck with finding partners. The Free Syrian Army is a complex mix of secular and extremest elements that don't look inseparable. If Romney can make sure the guns don't make it into the hands of the extreme Islamist groups in the FSA, he knows something the rest of the world doesn't know. There is a non partisan understanding we shouldn't support the next al Qaeda. Playing politics with Syria is foolish of Romney. n n n"Romney also rejected a policy of “daylight” between Israel and the U.S., committed himself to the peace process and a future Palestinian state, and reiterated his red line on Iran (nuclear capability)." n nRomney in his 47% hidden camera moment clearly said he was staying out of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Which Romney do you want to believe? You have a few choices, the man is a super store of contradicting choices. What does Romney say he will do to prevent this red line from being crossed? Bibi's red line is confusing but Romney's is meaningless. Don't be fooled by the "daylight" rhetoric, Bibi hasn't really drawn a defined red line, cartoon understandings aside. Expecting Obama to draw a definite line is hypocritical. Regardless, there is no daylight between the US and Israel policy on things that are clearly defined. n nAlana, your post is too fan girl. Just because we are partisans doesn't mean we should check our brains at the door. Ask some real questions of your candidate. We need to hold both of these men to the fire with tough questions. Fawning over Romney's assertions without asking for some substance doesn't do anyone any good.
Agree with you that we missed our moment with the Syrian rebels. The movement has been taken over by Islamist. Could the US have had some influence if we had acted decisively and early? We'll never know. n nDrones are a distraction. Romeny's point is that we need an overall strategy in the region, that takes realistic account of which countries share our interests, which share our interests and values, which share neither, and which countries can be either swayed or worked to our advantage. We have not had that under Obama. n nDaylight? Right now Israel is willing to negotiate but recognizes there is no one to negotiate with. Staying out of the misnamed 'peace process' for now, as opposed to continuing to press Israel for one-sided concessions (a policy that every president since Carter has followed) seems to reconcile what you view as two contradictory positions. [more]
[part 2] Certainly Romeny, unlike Obama and the Democratic platform, would not insist that the US can deny what city is Israel's capital (although I will be pleasantly surprised if he does move our embassy there), or that Israel withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, or waive GWB's written assurances, or ban Jews from living in Jerusalem, or allow "Palestinian Refugees" to take over the country, or negotiate with Hamas. Is that enough for starters?
does Romney read history? nor at least read Robert Kaplan?
Expand on your thoughts here, please.
re: Afghanistan. 2003-2005, I read everything I could find – from Robert Kaplan's "Soldiers of God: With the Mujahidin in Afghanistan (1990)" to Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars" when the paperback edition came out in 2005. nAfter Obama won in 2008, I read that he was just then reading "Ghost Wars", and I was aghast, mostly at why then Chair of Senate Foreign Relations Ctte Biden had not made "Ghost Wars" required reading by 2005. n n"Ghost Wars" was the best single synthesis of Afghan history. nThe only winners were Tamerlane and the Moghuls, descended from Genghis Khan. n I have long believed time to let China give it a try! n
We must all acknowledge that the Obama is the bestest smartest, coolest guy not only to ever be President, but to ever walk among us. That there will not be his like again. He is Aragorn reborn. He can read into the depths of our souls and tell us what we are, and where we need to go to be better human beings. He is why we must acknowledge that not only is the Black man the equal of the white man, but because of what he has suffered, the Black man is superior to the white man. Who else has ever combined all these qualities into one human being? n n"Imagine my day – riding Air Force One to a party at Beyonce's house after a day of killing arabs by remote control, death from above style, in between fielding calls from Putin and Erdogan. And before I got on the plane, I played a little basketball with some of my other Ivy League buddies, and BEAT them. Sh*t Yeah!" n n'"And this stiff loser, Romney, wants to debate ME?"
"Oh, and one more thing – I achieved all this after smoking my brains out and doing coke when I was younger. And, I didn't have to lift a finger to get through Columbia and Harvard Law. I was the editor of the 'effin Law Review, for crying out loud. Look at me, I'm Superman! Here to spread the teachable moments to bitter clingers. And, especially, to show the Jews who's really Boss."
Yes, President Obama is the is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most pro-Israel and most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
I did not see the speech but only read the transcript. The idea that had the most impact for me: "Start with your friends, not your enemies." n nThat simple idea 1) is remarkably clear, 2) makes obvious sense, and 3) failure to follow it explains ALL of Obama's numerous and rapidly escalating failures around the globe. n nRomney is well-advised to flesh that out and repeat it everywhere he goes but especially on October 16th. After four years of pursuing the reverse (i.e., "start with your enemies," which includes "insult your friends") and getting exactly NOWHERE, what WILL Obama have to say in rebuttal? That he agrees? That's flat-out impossible for a left-wing ideologue on US foreign policy as President Obama is right down to his DNA. No, the choices for Obama at that point in the debate would be to affirm his spectacularly failed policy or to exploit isolationism by offering, say, a "let's say 'screw you' to everybody" approach. That might have worked BEFORE so many US embassies and consulates were being torched. Now? Quite risky, I should think. Those are just debate choices, I stress, and I believe he will go for the latter con mucho gusto if challenged—his cheap and lazy smear about "endless war" suggests as much—which is something Romney better be prepared for. n nMy prediction as to what Obama will opt for if (shudder) he's re-elected? Some unwholesome, frankensteinian amalgam of both hate-your-friends foolishness (some more than others, if you see my point) AND isolationist demagoguery.
Walter Russell Mead has two thoughtful essays on Syria, and Romney's speech, at blogs.americaninterest. Because he extrapolates to broader foreign policy 'doctrines' in the Syria essay, best to read the two together, nStratfor's Friedman today on American foreign policy also worth reading. nRomney needs to not sound like Bush43 on American Exceptionalism. nas if anyone can influence the outcome in Syria…