QuoteMitt Romney to tackle President Obama on Libya
LEXINGTON, Va. — Using his harshest language yet, Mitt Romney will go after President Barack Obama on Monday over the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya.
In a tough foreign policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute here, the GOP presidential nominee will link the attacks in Benghazi — including the killing of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens — to a broader critique of Obama's foreign policy as naïve and weak.
"The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts," Romney plans to say. "They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East — a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself."
Romney's advisers say he will offer fresh details of how he'd change course in the region if he wins the White House in November. This speech is the outgrowth of an internal debate at Romney's Boston headquarters about how much time to spend on foreign policy in an election that will be decided on the economy and how forcefully to knock the president after a poorly-timed initial statement that backfired.
Besides Virginia's role as a prized swing state, campaign officials said they chose VMI as the venue because George Marshall — the former Army chief of staff during WWII who became secretary of State and then Defense during the early years of the Cold War — is an alumnus. Romney will open and close his speech with homage to Marshall, quoting Winston Churchill to praise Marshall for always fighting against "defeatism, discouragement and disillusion."
Romney advisers say Romney will try to position himself as the continuation of a bipartisan foreign policy tradition going back to Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan that emphasizes U.S. strength.
Romney special adviser Eliot Cohen said a president's job is to contextualize events overseas for the American people.
"We've gotten various excuses about Benghazi, statements that [the Obama administration] had to pull back from," he said. "But you haven't had an attempt to portray: What's going on here? How should we think about it? What should we do about it? Gov. Romney's going to do step forward and do the kind of things he would do as president — which is to lay out exactly those things."
Romney will say he believes that the attacks on Sept. 11, 2012, were "likely the work of the same forces that attacked our homeland" on Sept. 11, 2001. He'll commit Monday to "vigorously pursue" those responsible.
"This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration's attempts to convince us of that for so long," Romney plans to say, according to early excerpts shared by the campaign. "No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others...and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West."
"I know the President hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States," Romney plans to say. "I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy."
Romney's decision to aggressively take on the president over Libya comes full circle after initial criticism of Obama backfired in the immediate aftermath of the North African attacks.
It arrives on the heels of the White House changing its explanation for the attacks. At first, it described them as a spontaneous response to an anti-Muslim video circulating on YouTube. But several high-ranking administration officials, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, subsequently called the attack the work of terrorists.
The Obama campaign preemptively pushed back on Romney's speech with a statement highlighting Obama's accomplishments, including ending the war in Iraq, and criticizing Romney as a gaffe-prone, war-mongering flip-flopper.
"If Mitt Romney wants to have a debate about foreign policy, we have a message for him: bring it on," said Obama spokeswoman Lis Smith. "He's erratically shifted positions on every major foreign policy issue, including intervening in Libya, which he was against before he was for...It's clear that on every measure, Mitt Romney fails the commander-in-chief test."
Romney advisers respond that the speech makes Romney look presidential and the attack is part of a broader narrative.
"It's a recognition that strength is not provocative. It's weakness that's provocative," said Romney adviser Rich Williamson, a former assistant secretary of state and a special envoy to Sudan under George W. Bush. "It's part of a larger mosaic of the failed leadership."
Williamson told reporters on a Sunday conference call that Romney believes that Obama's global approach has been too reflexive and simplistic.
"While drones and drone attacks are worthwhile and it's good to kill bad guys, you fundamentally misunderstand this struggle if you think that's an answer to it," he said. "It's not. It's just one of the tools, and the governor's going to outline a broader menu and a broader strategy and provide the American people with a clearer vision of the choice they must make on Election Day."
Romney has spoken on foreign policy, but not necessarily very clearly.
The former Massachusetts governor has delivered a spate of speeches that the campaign billed as significant: at the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, during his summer trip abroad, at the Citadel and most recently at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York. In his stump speech, Romney talks a great deal about the need to show "leadership," but he rarely goes into much depth.
On Monday, Romney will outline what he'd do as president in a host of hot spots.
He would draw clearer red lines regarding Iran to stop its nuclear weapons development: "I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf the region — and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination."
As a counterweight to Iranian influence, Romney supports the arming of rebels to defeat the Syrian regime and building relationships with the insurgents so that they can eventually become allies: "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."
Romney will explain that America has friends and enemies, but that some exist in a gray area in between. He would make foreign aid to Egypt conditional on the new Islamist government building democratic institutions and maintaining peace with Israel.
In Afghanistan, Romney reiterates his support for a "a real and successful transition" to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014, but he keeps the door open to an indefinite U.S. military presence if the country becomes a terrorist sanctuary.
"I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders," he will say. "And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation."
Romney also explains that he supports a two-state solution in Israel. "In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new President will bring the chance to begin anew," he'll say.
Trying to link the speech to the economy, Romney promises to push hard for more trade. He criticizes Obama for not signing a new free trade agreement while president.
QuoteRomney Strives to Stand Apart in Global Policy
WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney is intensifying his efforts to draw a sharp contrast with President Obama on national security in the presidential campaign's closing stages, portraying Mr. Obama as having mishandled the tumult in the Arab world and having left the nation exposed to a terrorist attack in Libya.
In a speech on Monday at the Virginia Military Institute, Mr. Romney will declare that "hope is not a strategy" for dealing with the rise of Islamist governments in the Middle East or an Iran racing toward the capability to build a nuclear weapon, according to excerpts released by his campaign.
The essence of Mr. Romney's argument is that he would take the United States back to an earlier era, one that would result, as his young foreign policy director, Alex Wong, told reporters on Sunday, in "the restoration of a strategy that served us well for 70 years."
But beyond his critique of Mr. Obama as failing to project American strength abroad, Mr. Romney has yet to fill in many of the details of how he would conduct policy toward the rest of the world, or to resolve deep ideological rifts within the Republican Party and his own foreign policy team. It is a disparate and politely fractious team of advisers that includes warring tribes of neoconservatives, traditional strong-defense conservatives and a band of self-described "realists" who believe there are limits to the degree the United States can impose its will.
Each group is vying to shape Mr. Romney's views, usually through policy papers that many of the advisers wonder if he is reading. Indeed, in a campaign that has been so intensely focused on economic issues, some of these advisers, in interviews over the past two weeks in which most insisted on anonymity, say they have engaged with him so little on issues of national security that they are uncertain what camp he would fall into, and are uncertain themselves about how he would govern.
"Would he take the lead in bombing Iran if the mullahs were getting too close to a bomb, or just back up the Israelis?" one of his senior advisers asked last week. "Would he push for peace with the Palestinians, or just live with the status quo? He's left himself a lot of wiggle room."
Indeed, while the theme Mr. Romney plans to hit the hardest in his speech at V.M.I. — that the Obama era has been one marked by "weakness" and the abandonment of allies — has political appeal, the specific descriptions of what Mr. Romney would do, on issues like drawing red lines for Iran's nuclear program and threatening to cut off military aid to difficult allies like Pakistan or Egypt if they veer away from American interests, sound at times quite close to Mr. Obama's approach.
And the speech appears to glide past positions Mr. Romney himself took more than a year ago, when he voiced opposition to expanding the intervention in Libya to hunt down Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with what he termed insufficient resources. He called it "mission creep and mission muddle," though within months Mr. Qaddafi was gone. And last spring, Mr. Romney was caught on tape telling donors he believed there was "just no way" a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could work.
Mr. Romney's Monday speech calls vaguely for support of Libya's "efforts to forge a lasting government" and to pursue the "terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed Americans." And he said he would "recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security" with Israel. But he does not say what resources he would devote to those tasks.
The shifts, a half dozen of Mr. Romney's advisers said in interviews, partly reflect the fact that the candidate himself has not deeply engaged in these issues for most of the campaign, certainly not with the enthusiasm, and instincts, he has on domestic economic issues. But they also represent continuing divisions.
Some are on the way to resolution. Over the summer, an "inner circle" of foreign policy advisers emerged, with Richard S. Williamson, a former Reagan administration official who briefly returned to government to serve President George W. Bush, playing a leading role. Another central player is Mitchell B. Reiss, the president of Washington College in Maryland and a veteran of Mr. Romney's 2008 campaign. And Jim Talent, the former Missouri senator, has taken a major role in defense strategy.
Liz Cheney, who served in the State Department during the Bush administration and is the daughter of Mr. Bush's vice president, has begun to join a weekly conference call that sporadically includes Dan Senor, who served as spokesman for the American occupation government in Iraq. Since the Republican National Convention, Mr. Senor has been assigned to the staff of Mr. Romney's running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, who in recent weeks has made Mr. Obama's foreign policy a particular target.
The foreign policy group is overseen by Kerry Healey, who served as lieutenant governor under Mr. Romney in Massachusetts. Missing from the calls are some of the better-known veterans of the Republican foreign policy wars that played out during the Bush administration and went into abeyance until the players reconvened in Mr. Romney's campaign.
The faction around John R. Bolton — the neoconservative former ambassador to the United Nations, who has made clear his distaste for working through international organizations — expressed its deep unhappiness when Robert Zoellick was appointed as a strategist for the national security transition team. Mr. Zoellick, the former president of the World Bank, who also served in the Bush administration, comes from the internationalist wing of the party; Mr. Bolton's allies deride him as moderate to a fault.
Those disputes have been shelved, at least until Nov. 7, advisers say. " 'After the election,' that's what they say in all the conference calls," one member of the team said after trying, unsuccessfully, to argue for more specificity in one of Mr. Romney's recent statements on the Middle East. He added, "They see little benefit in resuming the battles that preoccupied the Bush White House, at least for the next month."
Two of Mr. Romney's advisers said he did not seem to have the strong instincts that he has on economic issues; he resonates best, one said, to the concept of "projecting strength" and "restoring global economic growth." But he has appeared unconcerned about the widely differing views within his own campaign about whether spreading American-style freedoms in the Middle East or simply managing, and limiting, the rise of Islamist governments should be a major goal.
And that has led to some embarrassing confusion. Mr. Williamson said in an interview two weeks ago that Mr. Romney favored arming the Syrian rebels, then called back to say that, in fact, Mr. Romney favored having Arab neighbors arm them, a position fairly close to Mr. Obama's. In the speech he is to give on Monday, Mr. Romney calls for organizing "members of the opposition who share our values" and ensuring "they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad's tanks, helicopters and fighter jets." But he stops short of saying he would provide them himself.
In a television interview two weeks ago, Mr. Romney seemed to forget his position that he would halt Iran from getting a nuclear "capability" — something it would reach long before it had a weapon — and sounded like he was in agreement with the president that he would simply stop Iran from gaining a weapon.
In the V.M.I. speech, he returns to the promise to "prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability." But he discusses primarily "new sanctions on Iran," at a moment when Mr. Obama has imposed what Republicans from the Bush administration agree are the most severe sanctions in history, and combined them with cyberattacks on Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
Missing from the team are the big names in establishment Republican foreign policy circles. The best known of them, Henry A. Kissinger, has endorsed Mr. Romney, but recently took a shot at his declaration that he would declare China a currency manipulator on the "first day" of a new administration. Last week, Mr. Kissinger described both presidential candidates' approach to China as "extremely deplorable."
Am I missing it? How does he suggest that we show our strength? Is he talking about more troops in the Middle East? If so, how do we pay for that and balance the budget?
I'm really trying to understand this man's message, but I'm just not getting it.
After reading all of that I still don't understand how Romney's foreign policy is going to differ one iota from the President's foreign policy.
QuoteAs a counterweight to Iranian influence, Romney supports the arming of rebels to defeat the Syrian regime and building relationships with the insurgents so that they can eventually become allies: "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."
Great so we would then be ultimately responsible for whatever crazy shit these groups would do. I would prefer helping Turkey help the insurgents but it would be disguised under the guise of NATO thus we would have more political cover. Have Turkey shoulder the burden of Syria and it would also act a counterweight to Iranian influence.
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2012, 09:55:40 AM
Great so we would then be ultimately responsible for whatever crazy shit these groups would do. I would prefer helping Turkey help the insurgents but it would be disguised under the guise of NATO thus we would have more political cover. Have Turkey shoulder the burden of Syria and it would also act a counterweight to Iranian influence.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt and soon to be Syria...I'm amazed how we never cease to believe that we can somehow ultimately drive these complex situations ourselves to a conclusion of our choice, like somehow they're post-war European nations we share a common heritage with. IT'LL BE BETTER NEXT TIME PROMISE
Quote'Hope is Not a Strategy': Mitt Romney's Foreign Policy Address
As prepared for delivery October 8, 2012, at the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia, here is Mitt Romney's address on foreign policy, titled "The Mantle of Leadership."
I particularly appreciate the introduction from my good friend and tireless campaign companion, Gov. Bob McDonnell. He is showing what conservative leadership can do to build a stronger economy. Thank you also Congressman Goodlatte for joining us today. And particular thanks to Gen. Peay. I appreciate your invitation to be with you today at the Virginia Military Institute. It is a great privilege to be here at an Institution that has done so much for our nation, both in war and in peace.
For more than 170 years, VMI has done more than educate students. It has guided their transformation into citizens, and warriors, and leaders. VMI graduates have served with honor in our nation's defense, just as many are doing today in Afghanistan and other lands. Since the September 11th attacks, many of VMI's sons and daughters have defended America, and I mourn with you the 15 brave souls who have been lost. I join you in praying for the many VMI graduates and all Americans who are now serving in harm's way. May God bless all who serve, and all who have served.
Of all the VMI graduates, none is more distinguished than George Marshall—the Chief of Staff of the Army who became Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, who helped to vanquish fascism and then planned Europe's rescue from despair. His commitment to peace was born of his direct knowledge of the awful costs and consequences of war.
General Marshall once said, "The only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it." Those words were true in his time—and they still echo in ours.
Last month, our nation was attacked again. A U.S. Ambassador and three of our fellow Americans are dead—murdered in Benghazi, Libya. Among the dead were three veterans. All of them were fine men, on a mission of peace and friendship to a nation that dearly longs for both. President Obama has said that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues represented the best of America. And he is right. We all mourn their loss.
The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident. They were accompanied by anti-American riots in nearly two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also in Africa and Asia. Our embassies have been attacked. Our flag has been burned. Many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homes by vicious mobs, shouting "Death to America." These mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American embassies on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.
As the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and what this calls on America to do. These are the right questions. And I have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events—and to share with you, and all Americans, my vision for a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world.
The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts. They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East—a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself.
The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration's attempts to convince us of that for so long. No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.
We saw all of this in Benghazi last month—but we also saw something else, something hopeful. After the attack on our Consulate, tens of thousands of Libyans, most of them young people, held a massive protest in Benghazi against the very extremists who murdered our people. They waved signs that read, "The Ambassador was Libya's friend" and "Libya is sorry." They chanted "No to militias." They marched, unarmed, to the terrorist compound. Then they burned it to the ground. As one Libyan woman said, "We are not going to go from darkness to darkness."
This is the struggle that is now shaking the entire Middle East to its foundation. It is the struggle of millions and millions of people—men and women, young and old, Muslims, Christians and non-believers—all of whom have had enough of the darkness. It is a struggle for the dignity that comes with freedom, and opportunity, and the right to live under laws of our own making. It is a struggle that has unfolded under green banners in the streets of Iran, in the public squares of Tunisia and Egypt and Yemen, and in the fights for liberty in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Libya, and now Syria. In short, it is a struggle between liberty and tyranny, justice and oppression, hope and despair.
We have seen this struggle before. It would be familiar to George Marshall. In his time, in the ashes of world war, another critical part of the world was torn between democracy and despotism. Fortunately, we had leaders of courage and vision, both Republicans and Democrats, who knew that America had to support friends who shared our values, and prevent today's crises from becoming tomorrow's conflicts.
Statesmen like Marshall rallied our nation to rise to its responsibilities as the leader of the free world. We helped our friends to build and sustain free societies and free markets. We defended our friends, and ourselves, from our common enemies. We led. And though the path was long and uncertain, the thought of war in Europe is as inconceivable today as it seemed inevitable in the last century.
This is what makes America exceptional: It is not just the character of our country—it is the record of our accomplishments. America has a proud history of strong, confident, principled global leadership—a history that has been written by patriots of both parties. That is America at its best. And it is the standard by which we measure every President, as well as anyone who wishes to be President. Unfortunately, this President's policies have not been equal to our best examples of world leadership. And nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East.
I want to be very clear: The blame for the murder of our people in Libya, and the attacks on our embassies in so many other countries, lies solely with those who carried them out—no one else. But it is the responsibility of our President to use America's great power to shape history—not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we find ourselves in the Middle East under President Obama.
Continued--
QuoteThe relationship between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel, our closest ally in the region, has suffered great strains. The President explicitly stated that his goal was to put "daylight" between the United States and Israel. And he has succeeded. This is a dangerous situation that has set back the hope of peace in the Middle East and emboldened our mutual adversaries, especially Iran.
Iran today has never been closer to a nuclear weapons capability. It has never posed a greater danger to our friends, our allies, and to us. And it has never acted less deterred by America, as was made clear last year when Iranian agents plotted to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in our nation's capital. And yet, when millions of Iranians took to the streets in June of 2009, when they demanded freedom from a cruel regime that threatens the world, when they cried out, "Are you with us, or are you with them?"—the American President was silent.
Across the greater Middle East, as the joy born from the downfall of dictators has given way to the painstaking work of building capable security forces, and growing economies, and developing democratic institutions, the President has failed to offer the tangible support that our partners want and need.
In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet, America's ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The President tried—and failed—to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.
The President has failed to lead in Syria, where more than 30,000 men, women, and children have been massacred by the Assad regime over the past 20 months. Violent extremists are flowing into the fight. Our ally Turkey has been attacked. And the conflict threatens stability in the region.
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.
The President is fond of saying that "The tide of war is receding." And I want to believe him as much as anyone. But when we look at the Middle East today—with Iran closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability, with the conflict in Syria threating to destabilize the region, with violent extremists on the march, and with an American Ambassador and three others dead likely at the hands of Al-Qaeda affiliates— it is clear that the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the President took office.
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.
The greater tragedy of it all is that we are missing an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the Middle East—friends who are fighting for their own futures against the very same violent extremists, and evil tyrants, and angry mobs who seek to harm us. Unfortunately, so many of these people who could be our friends feel that our President is indifferent to their quest for freedom and dignity. As one Syrian woman put it, "We will not forget that you forgot about us."
It is time to change course in the Middle East. That course should be organized around these bedrock principles: America must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose and resolve in our might. No friend of America will question our commitment to support them... no enemy that attacks America will question our resolve to defeat them... and no one anywhere, friend or foe, will doubt America's capability to back up our words.
I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region—and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination. For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions—not just words—that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated.
I will reaffirm our historic ties to Israel and our abiding commitment to its security—the world must never see any daylight between our two nations.
I will deepen our critical cooperation with our partners in the Gulf.
And I will roll back President Obama's deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military. I will make the critical defense investments that we need to remain secure. The decisions we make today will determine our ability to protect America tomorrow. The first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war.
The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines. I will implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats. And on this, there will be no flexibility with Vladimir Putin. And I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark.
I will make further reforms to our foreign assistance to create incentives for good governance, free enterprise, and greater trade, in the Middle East and beyond. I will organize all assistance efforts in the greater Middle East under one official with responsibility and accountability to prioritize efforts and produce results. I will rally our friends and allies to match our generosity with theirs. And I will make it clear to the recipients of our aid that, in return for our material support, they must meet the responsibilities of every decent modern government—to respect the rights of all of their citizens, including women and minorities... to ensure space for civil society, a free media, political parties, and an independent judiciary... and to abide by their international commitments to protect our diplomats and our property.
I will champion free trade and restore it as a critical element of our strategy, both in the Middle East and across the world. The President has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years. I will reverse that failure. I will work with nations around the world that are committed to the principles of free enterprise, expanding existing relationships and establishing new ones.
I will support friends across the Middle East who share our values, but need help defending them and their sovereignty against our common enemies.
In Libya, I will support the Libyan people's efforts to forge a lasting government that represents all of them, and I will vigorously pursue the terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed Americans.
In Egypt, I will use our influence—including clear conditions on our aid—to urge the new government to represent all Egyptians, to build democratic institutions, and to maintain its peace treaty with Israel. And we must persuade our friends and allies to place similar stipulations on their aid.
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.
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.
Finally, 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. On this vital issue, the President has failed, and what should be a negotiation process has devolved into a series of heated disputes at the United Nations. In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new President will bring the chance to begin anew.
There is a longing for American leadership in the Middle East—and it is not unique to that region. It is broadly felt by America's friends and allies in other parts of the world as well— in Europe, where Putin's Russia casts a long shadow over young democracies, and where our oldest allies have been told we are "pivoting" away from them ... in Asia and across the Pacific, where China's recent assertiveness is sending chills through the region ... and here in our own hemisphere, where our neighbors in Latin America want to resist the failed ideology of Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers and deepen ties with the United States on trade, energy, and security. But in all of these places, just as in the Middle East, the question is asked: "Where does America stand?"
I know many Americans are asking a different question: "Why us?" I know many Americans are asking whether our country today—with our ailing economy, and our massive debt, and after 11 years at war—is still capable of leading.
I believe that if America does not lead, others will—others who do not share our interests and our values—and the world will grow darker, for our friends and for us. America's security and the cause of freedom cannot afford four more years like the last four years. I am running for President because I believe the leader of the free world has a duty, to our citizens, and to our friends everywhere, to use America's great influence—wisely, with solemnity and without false pride, but also firmly and actively—to shape events in ways that secure our interests, further our values, prevent conflict, and make the world better—not perfect, but better.
Our friends and allies across the globe do not want less American leadership. They want more—more of our moral support, more of our security cooperation, more of our trade, and more of our assistance in building free societies and thriving economies. So many people across the world still look to America as the best hope of humankind. So many people still have faith in America. We must show them that we still have faith in ourselves—that we have the will and the wisdom to revive our stagnant economy, to roll back our unsustainable debt, to reform our government, to reverse the catastrophic cuts now threatening our national defense, to renew the sources of our great power, and to lead the course of human events. Sir Winston Churchill once said of George Marshall: "He ... always fought victoriously against defeatism, discouragement, and disillusion." That is the role our friends want America to play again. And it is the role we must play.
The 21st century can and must be an American century. It began with terror, war, and economic calamity. It is our duty to steer it onto the path of freedom, peace, and prosperity.
The torch America carries is one of decency and hope. It is not America's torch alone. But it is America's duty – and honor – to hold it high enough that all the world can see its light.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
QuoteAnd in Afghanistan, I will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014.
LOLZ
America First! Time for a period of isolation.
QuoteOf all the VMI graduates, none is more distinguished than George Marshall
Pfft. Everybody knows it's Bobby Ross.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 08, 2012, 11:12:36 AM
America First! Time for a period of isolation.
Works for me.
Quote from: merithyn on October 08, 2012, 09:46:03 AM
Am I missing it? How does he suggest that we show our strength? Is he talking about more troops in the Middle East? If so, how do we pay for that and balance the budget?
I'm really trying to understand this man's message, but I'm just not getting it.
Great White Fleet v2.0
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 08, 2012, 11:14:38 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 08, 2012, 09:46:03 AM
Am I missing it? How does he suggest that we show our strength? Is he talking about more troops in the Middle East? If so, how do we pay for that and balance the budget?
I'm really trying to understand this man's message, but I'm just not getting it.
Great White Fleet v2.0
:contract:
Take away the whore pill money and give it to the navy.
At the risk of stating the obvious, one of these guys gets daily security briefings, and the other doesn't. Makes one wonder what Romney knows that Obama doesn't, and how.
Conclusion: baseless pandering to the military ops-happy Republican base.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 08, 2012, 12:09:47 PM
At the risk of stating the obvious, one of these guys gets daily security briefings, and the other doesn't. Makes one wonder what Romney knows that Obama doesn't, and how.
Conclusion: baseless pandering to the military ops-happy Republican base.
Mittens and Ryan have been getting daily security briefings since the week before the convention; maybe not to the level of the POTUS, but all candidates get them once they receive the nomination.
Still doesn't stop him from talking out of his ass, though.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 08, 2012, 12:09:47 PM
At the risk of stating the obvious, one of these guys gets daily security briefings, and the other doesn't.
I think you've done well to mitigate that risk.
Quote from: merithyn on October 08, 2012, 09:46:03 AM
Am I missing it? How does he suggest that we show our strength? Is he talking about more troops in the Middle East? If so, how do we pay for that and balance the budget?
The only thing to do is to try to extract out the concretes from the speech, i.e. actual proposals as opposed to rhetoric. Here's what I get:
+ "Restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region" - there are a couple of carrier strike groups in the Gulf region now. Don't know what "permanent presence" means. My understanding is that basing facilities in the region are limited.
+"roll back" defense cuts - extent and method of payment not stated.
+ "Build 15 ships per year, including three submarines" - presumably included in above. - This proposal appears to come from John Lehman (now a Romney defense advisor). For comparison the plan for 2013 is 2 subs and 8 surface ships of various types, for a total of 10. The five year plan is rougly 2 subs per year and 7 other ships per year. The merits are difficult to evaluate without some insight into the specific additional ships proposed.
+ "Organize all assistance efforts in the greater Middle East under one official with responsibility and accountability" -- i.e. he will appoint a regional czar with a brief to coordinate aid programs. Not a bad idea in theory although in practice may just add another layer of bureaucracy and provoke conflicts.
+ Egypt: aid to be conditioned on the new government maintaining its peace treaty with Israel. -- this is already policy.
+ Syria: arm the Sunni opposition
+ Afganistan - same policy as current administration
What is interesting about these proposals is not their merits (which may be good although at this point mostly unclear), but their modesty in terms of originality and boldness compared to the rhetoric that accompanies them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 01:06:58 PM
What is interesting about these proposals is not their merits (which may be good although at this point mostly unclear), but their modesty in terms of originality and boldness compared to the rhetoric that accompanies them.
I think there's a campaign going on or something :P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 01:06:58 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 08, 2012, 09:46:03 AM
Am I missing it? How does he suggest that we show our strength? Is he talking about more troops in the Middle East? If so, how do we pay for that and balance the budget?
.....
+ "Build 15 ships per year, including three submarines" - presumably included in above. - This proposal appears to come from John Lehman (now a Romney defense advisor). For comparison the plan for 2013 is 2 subs and 8 surface ships of various types, for a total of 10. The five year plan is rougly 2 subs per year and 7 other ships per year. The merits are difficult to evaluate without some insight into the specific additional ships proposed.
......
Are even the rest of the world's navies combined building more than that number of ''quality' ships a year ?
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 02:22:05 PM
Are even the rest of the world's navies combined building more than that number of ''quality' ships a year ?
But you don't understand; the size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. My God, and to make things worse, all the battle wagons are lined up at Pearl, just waiting for the Japanese. So, it's like 1916 and 1941 all together.
QuoteAnd I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark.
You do that, Mittens. Call on them. See what they say about that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 02:25:43 PM
You do that, Mittens. Call on them. See what they say about that.
What do you think he is building that huge battle fleet for? Gunboat diplomacy to be used on Euros.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 02:25:43 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 02:22:05 PM
Are even the rest of the world's navies combined building more than that number of ''quality' ships a year ?
But you don't understand; the size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. My God, and to make things worse, all the battle wagons are lined up at Pearl, just waiting for the Japanese. So, it's like 1916 and 1941 all together.
The number 15 must have done well in focus groups. Like Obama's 100,000 math & science teachers (which btw I guess social studies teachers can bugger off :angry: ).
Numbers of ships aren't important. What is important is that the Navy have a good idea of who they are supposed to be fighting and how they'll be fighting them.
Quote from: Neil on October 08, 2012, 02:58:12 PM
Numbers of ships aren't important. What is important is that the Navy have a good idea of who they are supposed to be fighting and how they'll be fighting them.
yeah, dreadnoughts are useless against hajis in the deserts and mountains.
Quote from: Viking on October 08, 2012, 02:59:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 08, 2012, 02:58:12 PM
Numbers of ships aren't important. What is important is that the Navy have a good idea of who they are supposed to be fighting and how they'll be fighting them.
yeah, dreadnoughts are useless against hajis in the deserts and mountains.
That's not really the Navy's fight, except in the sense that they provide carrier support. The Navy's job is to prepare to defeat China.
Quote from: derspiess on October 08, 2012, 02:07:52 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 01:06:58 PM
What is interesting about these proposals is not their merits (which may be good although at this point mostly unclear), but their modesty in terms of originality and boldness compared to the rhetoric that accompanies them.
I think there's a campaign going on or something :P
IMO its a good thing. Shows he isn't tempted into advocating something really stupid just to win the election.
Quote from: derspiess on October 08, 2012, 02:54:21 PM
The number 15 must have done well in focus groups. Like Obama's 100,000 math & science teachers (which btw I guess social studies teachers can bugger off :angry: ).
Don't know why that would get a :angry: from you; falls right in line with the GOP's desire in reducing civic participation. :P
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 02:22:05 PM
Are even the rest of the world's navies combined building more than that number of ''quality' ships a year ?
China is building pretty fast, although that raises the question of how you define "quality ship"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 12:25:34 PM
Mittens and Ryan have been getting daily security briefings since the week before the convention; maybe not to the level of the POTUS, but all candidates get them once they receive the nomination.
REally? Why?
So any joke candidate gets daily security briefings? :huh:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 05:38:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 02:22:05 PM
Are even the rest of the world's navies combined building more than that number of ''quality' ships a year ?
China is building pretty fast, although that raises the question of how you define "quality ship"
Any ship, which when in contact with the enemy does not provoke anybody serving on her to utter any variant of
QuoteChatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today.
well, either that or
QuoteAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111oneoneoenoen
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 02:22:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 01:06:58 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 08, 2012, 09:46:03 AM
Am I missing it? How does he suggest that we show our strength? Is he talking about more troops in the Middle East? If so, how do we pay for that and balance the budget?
.....
+ "Build 15 ships per year, including three submarines" - presumably included in above. - This proposal appears to come from John Lehman (now a Romney defense advisor). For comparison the plan for 2013 is 2 subs and 8 surface ships of various types, for a total of 10. The five year plan is rougly 2 subs per year and 7 other ships per year. The merits are difficult to evaluate without some insight into the specific additional ships proposed.
......
Are even the rest of the world's navies combined building more than that number of ''quality' ships a year ?
The Japs are building three more "helicopter" carriers to counter the Chinese. The Chinese are building a ton of submarines.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 08, 2012, 05:43:16 PM
The Japs are building three more "helicopter" carriers to counter the Chinese. The Chinese are building a ton of submarines.
I also suspect they are carpeting the East and South China Seas with modern SOSUS as well.
Would be curious if the languishista navalists have a view as to the feasibility or advisibility of basing carrier strike groups "permanently" in the Gulf region.
To the extent it requires pulling a group or more out of the Pacific, seems like not such a great idea.
Re feasibility - are the basing facilities in the region (Bahrain? Diego Garcia?) sufficiently stocked and secure to supply carrier groups on permanent station? Would it be feabile to supply via air or sea replenishment?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 05:38:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 02:22:05 PM
Are even the rest of the world's navies combined building more than that number of ''quality' ships a year ?
China is building pretty fast, although that raises the question of how you define "quality ship"
Hence its inclusion in my sentence; proof in the pudding and so forth.
Quote from: Josephus on October 08, 2012, 05:42:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 12:25:34 PM
Mittens and Ryan have been getting daily security briefings since the week before the convention; maybe not to the level of the POTUS, but all candidates get them once they receive the nomination.
REally? Why?
So any joke candidate gets daily security briefings? :huh:
I'm sure it's only the other major party candidate. Not just anybody. Think of them like the shadow govt.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 05:48:21 PM
Would be curious if the languishista navalists have a view as to the feasibility or advisibility of basing carrier strike groups "permanently" in the Gulf region.
To the extent it requires pulling a group or more out of the Pacific, seems like not such a great idea.
Re feasibility - are the basing facilities in the region (Bahrain? Diego Garcia?) sufficiently stocked and secure to supply carrier groups on permanent station? Would it be feabile to supply via air or sea replenishment?
Not being a languishista navalists, but Bahrain itself seems to resemble an aircraft carrier, if push came to shove it might be able to perform that role, without the need to risk 90,000 tons of steel in confined waters.
Oh that's assuming the base perimeter could be protected.
Quote from: derspiess on October 08, 2012, 02:54:21 PM
The number 15 must have done well in focus groups. Like Obama's 100,000 math & science teachers (which btw I guess social studies teachers can bugger off :angry: ).
:yes: Korea is welcome to them.
Quote from: Josephus on October 08, 2012, 05:42:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 12:25:34 PM
Mittens and Ryan have been getting daily security briefings since the week before the convention; maybe not to the level of the POTUS, but all candidates get them once they receive the nomination.
REally? Why?
So any joke candidate gets daily security briefings? :huh:
Here's a detailed history.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/cia-briefings-of-presidential-candidates/cia-5.htm
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 05:35:28 PM
Don't know why that would get a :angry: from you; falls right in line with the GOP's desire in reducing civic participation. :P
Then I guess you can call me a *maverick*. Science was sometimes interesting but I could take it or leave it. Math was pretty easy but I hated it with a passion. It was history, geography, etc. that always held my interest. Unfortunately the school system had no interest in offering anything but the bare minimum in those areas.
I tried to take college history classes when I was a high school senior but my principal doubted it would be worth the time (which was otherwise spent in office practice & study halls).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 05:48:21 PM
Would be curious if the languishista navalists have a view as to the feasibility or advisibility of basing carrier strike groups "permanently" in the Gulf region.
To the extent it requires pulling a group or more out of the Pacific, seems like not such a great idea.
Re feasibility - are the basing facilities in the region (Bahrain? Diego Garcia?) sufficiently stocked and secure to supply carrier groups on permanent station? Would it be feabile to supply via air or sea replenishment?
The USN has been heavily expanding their base in Bahrain for a couple of years, so I would say that the Superior Service has been planning ahead for basing a second carrier group for a while.
Honestly, I don't think that losing a carrier group in the Pacific is especially important. I mean, you'll miss the Aegis cruisers and whatnot, but when it comes to the ability to put aircraft in the air around China, you can't sink Taiwan, Luzon or Okinawa. There's still the rest of the Seventh Fleet to show the flag and hunt Chinese subs.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 05:48:21 PM
Would be curious if the languishista navalists have a view as to the feasibility or advisibility of basing carrier strike groups "permanently" in the Gulf region.
I think it's an incredibly bad idea. Grumbler thinks they're all safe inside the Gulf since they're not dealing with swarms from the Soviet Naval Air Arm anymore. I believe they don't even belong in there.
QuoteRe feasibility - are the basing facilities in the region (Bahrain? Diego Garcia?) sufficiently stocked and secure to supply carrier groups on permanent station? Would it be feabile to supply via air or sea replenishment?
Even though Bahrain is home of the 5th Fleet now and has a pretty big base, has been an important hub for military activity and projection, and the USN may very well have the capability to make it a permanent home port for an entire forward-deployed carrier battle group if they made it big enough, but it isn't now--it's not a San Diego or Yokosuka, and I don't trust the permanency or stability of an island nation smaller than metropolitan Baltimore run by a royal family with a proven track record of head-bashing its people, all under the range of Iranian SSMs.
It's just a bad place to set up camp, politically and militarily.
On the other hand, where's a good place to base them in the Indian Ocean? It would be better if the fleet had easy acccess to the open ocean, but then again supporting Kuwait and the Saudis is why they're there in the first place.
Quote from: Neil on October 08, 2012, 09:35:10 PM
On the other hand, where's a good place to base them in the Indian Ocean?
We never had a problem with them steaming on their own in the Indian Ocean before; IIRC, the 7th Fleet usually had one somewhere on station in the Indian Ocean, always a couple days' away or closer to the Gulf if necessary. Worked very well for many years before GW1. I'd prefer the old way we did things: that the Indian Ocean and Gulf was an extended area of operations split between the 7th and 6th Fleets, as needs and deployments dictated. But the ground wars in the area have made Bahrain necessary.
It would be cool, but I don't think the Indians would be open to the idea of a major USN presence on their soil :lol: Not with them having visions of their own naval ascendency now. Too bad we pissed on that relationship decades ago making hot monkey love with Pakistani strongmen instead, or things could look different today.
QuoteIt would be better if the fleet had easy acccess to the open ocean, but then again supporting Kuwait and the Saudis is why they're there in the first place.
Yeah, and I don't like it. I'd rather we not have any permanent naval bases in Arabia or East Africa, and if so, they should be just enough for berthing and resupply of surface combat groups.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 08, 2012, 05:48:58 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 08, 2012, 05:42:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 12:25:34 PM
Mittens and Ryan have been getting daily security briefings since the week before the convention; maybe not to the level of the POTUS, but all candidates get them once they receive the nomination.
REally? Why?
So any joke candidate gets daily security briefings? :huh:
I'm sure it's only the other major party candidate. Not just anybody. Think of them like the shadow govt.
Does this include our intelligence on the perfidious Grays? :area52:
Down with Gray Marriage!
Marriage is the union between one human and another human only!!!
Quote from: Viking on October 08, 2012, 02:59:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 08, 2012, 02:58:12 PM
Numbers of ships aren't important. What is important is that the Navy have a good idea of who they are supposed to be fighting and how they'll be fighting them.
yeah, dreadnoughts are useless against hajis in the deserts and mountains.
not if you power them with a million camels! Desertdreadnaughts!
Economist poo-poohs The Great Speech:
QuoteIF MITT ROMNEY'S latest foreign-policy speech, delivered to the Virginia Military Institute on October 8th amid much build-up from campaign aides, was a barnburner, it would have to be a small and highly flammable barn.
Moderate Massachusetts Mitt Romney, the self-assured centrist who made such a splash at the first presidential debate last week, put in another appearance in Virginia, delivering a more-cautious-than-expected attack on Barack Obama's foreign-policy record—one that carefully avoided blaming the president or his diplomacy for the murderous attacks in Benghazi that left America's ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three colleagues, dead.
True, in its main signposts and landmarks, it was a traditional conservative speech, with references to Churchill, the cold war, America holding a lamp of freedom aloft for the world to see, and Reaganesque talk of achieving "peace through strength".
But in its main line of attack—an opportunistic claim that the incumbent president had foolishly failed to see a magic strategy that would vastly increase American influence in the world and defang the nation's foes—the speech reminded Lexington curiously of another presidential candidate closer to the present day, Barack Obama in 2008.
Four years ago, Mr Obama's pitch was to point to a violent, angry and chaotic world order, and, in effect, to say the following:
Look at this mess. Now consider something demonstrably true—that lots of foreigners think that George W. Bush is a bully and a cowboy who started divisive wars of choice dressed up as wars of necessity, undermined the principle of multilateralism with self-serving talk of coalitions of the willing, and lost the moral high ground occupied after the September 11th attacks by conducting a response that flouted international law. There is a logical link between that mess and that conduct. If I turn away from Bush-like conduct, America's standing will be restored, divisions healed and the world will be in magically better shape.
That pitch worked for lots of foreigners, the most impressionable of whom (tsk, Scandinavians) awarded the incoming President Obama the Nobel peace prize on the strength of it.
The problem was that foreign policy is easier to critique than to fix. To give a name check to Robert Cooper, a British and European Union diplomat, former Blair adviser and all-round sage whom I quoted in a piece last week anonymously, the trouble with foreign policy is that it involves foreigners, and they do not always do that you want.
Carping opposition politicians, laying into an incumbent for failing to right the world's wrongs, have a right to criticise, but then must offer a credible answer to the counter-question: well, what are you going to do about it, then?
Mr Romney's speech failed that test several times. Thus, though he is right to point to foreign-policy setbacks that make the Barack Obama of 2008 look naïve and opportunistic, his own analysis is not any less opportunistic, and no less cheap.
In essence, he said this morning in Virginia:
Look, the world is a mess. Now ponder something incontrovertible: that my opponent made an unusually explicit bet that America's diplomatic hand would be magically strengthened if he were seen listening to other governments, swaggering less, paying careful heed to grievances in the Muslim world and paying more respect to multilateral bodies. That has not made the world less messy, so I, Mitt Romney, will reverse that course and my change will have magical consequences.
Yet take Mr Romney's detailed case, and it is full of wishful thinking, unsupported assertions and omissions.
For example, Mr Romney said:
The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident. They were accompanied by anti-American riots in nearly two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also in Africa and Asia. Our embassies have been attacked. Our flag has been burned. Many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homes by vicious mobs, shouting "Death to America." These mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American embassies on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks. As the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and what this calls on America to do. These are the right questions.
That struck me as both an unknowable assertion and politically risky. Certainly these images of anti-American protest are fresh in voters' minds. But have the threats faced by America "grown so much worse" in four years? Do American voters feel that? Some dangerous situations have grown more perilous, notably Iran's pursuit of a nuclear bomb. Pakistan remains a scary mess, and so does the Middle East. But many Americans are more focussed on the fact that Mr Obama has ended the war in Iraq and is bringing troops home from Afghanistan soon. Compared to the drum beat of alarm that sounded throughout the 2004 election campaign, for instance, with its terror alerts rising to red, the country feels pretty calm.
What Mr Romney was really trying to do was to sound calm and bipartisan while conveying some of the flavour of more partisan attacks by his supporters, when they claim that trouble in Benghazi is a result of American weakness. For example, Paul Ryan, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, told voters in Ohio to draw a direct link between what they see on television and the Republican charge that Mr Obama is an apologiser-in-chief. In his words:
If you go home after this and turn on your TV, you will likely see the failures of the Obama foreign policy unfolding before our eyes. You see, if you look around the world, what we are witnessing is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy. Four Americans were murdered in a terrorist attack in Benghazi. The point is in a Romney administration, when we know that we are clearly attacked by terrorists, we won't be afraid to say what it is. If terrorists attack us, we will say we had a terrorist attack, and more importantly, we will do what is necessary to prevent that from happening by having a strong military, by making sure that our adversaries do not test us, do not think that we are weak and in retreat. This was not simply an isolated incident but indicative of a broader failure. Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon. The Middle East is in turmoil. Nearly two dozen nations we witness on our television screens were burning our flags in protest in riots. You see, if we project weakness abroad, our adversaries are that much more willing to test us, to question our resolve, and our allies are more hesitant to trust us.
Is Mr Ryan really saying that the rage of flag-burning mobs is triggered by American weakness? Is he even saying that terrorism is triggered by American weakness? What about flag-burning protests and terror attacks on America during the Bush years? Were they triggered by American strength? What about protests in Pakistan against drone strikes that kill Islamic militants? Are those protests against a weak or an assertive America?
Mr Ryan must know, deep down, that in contrast with the full-scale wars between states of earlier times, globalised protests and terror attacks are asymmetric responses. Their whole point is that they are not calibrated to the strength of an adversary. Surely the bigger, painful lesson of recent decades is that anti-American hatred among Islamic extremists is triggered by bipartisan policies that America cannot and should not change, starting with strong support for Israel, and some that are not going to change any time soon, such as close co-operation with the petro-monarchies of the Gulf.
Mr Romney, for his part, added this careful caveat, arguing that:
The blame for the murder of our people in Libya, and the attacks on our embassies in so many other countries, lies solely with those who carried them out—no one else.
However he went on:
But it is the responsibility of our President to use America's great power to shape history—not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we find ourselves in the Middle East under President Obama.
Then came his magical claim:
The greater tragedy of it all is that we are missing an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the Middle East—friends who are fighting for their own futures against the very same violent extremists, and evil tyrants, and angry mobs who seek to harm us. Unfortunately, so many of these people who could be our friends feel that our President is indifferent to their quest for freedom and dignity.
Mr Romney pointed to Syria, quoting a woman from that blood-soaked country and saying: "We will not forget that you forgot about us." He cited pro-American demonstrators in Libya, and the abortive Green revolution on Iran, during which, he said, Mr Obama was silent. His message was clear: America is foolishly betraying its would-be friends.
In truth, his speech, though grave and stern in its delivery, was pretty short on policies that differ greatly from Mr Obama's.
And in the areas where it did propose substantial policy shifts, the sad truth is that they would probably clash with his plans for magical transformation. He suggests that he would treat Israel with more consideration than Mr Obama has, for instance. That may be his best judgment of how to handle the Middle East, and is certainly good American politics for a Republican. But it would not win America friends with those reformists he praised in Libya or Syria.
Mr Romney offered language on Iran that was a smidgeon tougher than Mr Obama's, talking of not tolerating the development of an Iranian nuclear capability, a lower threshold than denouncing an Iranian bomb. But even assuming it is clear what Mr Romney means by vowing not to tolerate such a thing, if he were to endorse, say, Israeli strikes on Iran, it is entirely possible that would damn America for a long while in the eyes of those same Iranian reformists that he faults Mr Obama for abandoning.
The world is maddeningly complicated, even for American politicians keen to assert simple truths about strength and moral courage. Mr Romney seems to know that, deep down. Thus while criticising Mr Obama for doing nothing to stop massacres in Syria, he offered a hedged plan of his own, saying:
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.
Well, yes. But what if those reassuring Syrian rebels, who share American values, are not large enough in number or great enough in strength to defeat the Assad regime, arms or no arms? What if the Assad regime can be toppled only by Islamists driven by sectarian hate rather than dreams of Jeffersonian democracy? Mr Romney knows that these are the messy, unsatisfying questions that face presidents, and which currently face Mr Obama.
Yet he concludes with platitudes about a world crying out for more American leadership, not less, and embracing his duty to make the 21st century an "American one".
Mr Romney chides Mr Obama for putting his faith in empty, though ringing oratory. Today's foreign-policy address was no more than that, alas.
It also pooh-poohs Obama, but you probably ignored that part. :P
Quote from: Kleves on October 09, 2012, 12:08:15 PM
It also pooh-poohs Obama, but you probably ignored that part. :P
This isn't the Obama Foreign Policy Vision thread, dammit. :P
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 05:52:44 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 05:48:21 PM
Would be curious if the languishista navalists have a view as to the feasibility or advisibility of basing carrier strike groups "permanently" in the Gulf region.
To the extent it requires pulling a group or more out of the Pacific, seems like not such a great idea.
Re feasibility - are the basing facilities in the region (Bahrain? Diego Garcia?) sufficiently stocked and secure to supply carrier groups on permanent station? Would it be feabile to supply via air or sea replenishment?
Not being a languishista navalists, but Bahrain itself seems to resemble an aircraft carrier, if push came to shove it might be able to perform that role, without the need to risk 90,000 tons of steel in confined waters.
Oh that's assuming the base perimeter could be protected.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FjHrhn.jpg&hash=80803260a0c1b06ea0a170682ada047be3b40c41)