In their dueling speeches to the Veterans of Foreign Wars this week, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have offered pointedly contrasting visions on American defense and foreign policy. Foreign embassies are parsing their texts for clues to likely American behavior in coming years as they prepare cables for their governments back home, since there will not be another such occasion until the one presidential debate traditionally devoted to foreign policy in the fall.
Perhaps more Americans than conventional wisdom expects will also be attentive to the contrasts in these two addresses. Last week's New York Times poll revealed that a surprising two-thirds of voters say that foreign policy is very important to their vote -- the same share as view illegal immigration as very important, and half again higher than those who attach importance to supposedly red-button "social issues." And on these issues, President Obama is seen as more able by a 47-to-40 percent margin.
To be sure, Obama actually devoted less attention in his V.F.W. address to foreign policy (28 percent of his speaking time) than to the care of American veterans when they return home (43 percent of his allotted time). Governor Romney spent 70 percent of his speech Tuesday on foreign policy, and the bulk of the rest to criticisms of alleged security leaks; he did not address veterans' care issues.
The president began by reminding the war veterans of America's tattered global standing as George W. Bush's administration approached its end -- a point of reference Romney did not cite. "We were engaged in two wars. Al Qaeda was entrenched in their safe havens in Pakistan. Many of our alliances were frayed. Our standing in the world had suffered. We were in the worst recession of our lifetimes."
Obama reiterated his standard summary of accomplishments, depicted as 2008 campaign commitments fulfilled. He said he terminated the war his predecessor had launched in Iraq, "honorably" and without illusions about a mission accomplished. He slyly recalled that last year "some said" -- presumably meaning Romney -- that bringing the troops home "was a mistake." Romney in his remarks would not mention Iraq at all.
His troop surge in Afghanistan, Obama said, set back the Taliban as a necessary prelude to a timetable for U.S. withdrawal -- though "there are those who argued against a timeline for ending this war," evidently alluding again to Romney. Romney replied Tuesday that his criticism was of withdrawing troops this summer, against the generals' wish to keep them for the entire fighting season.
Inevitably, the president cited Osama bin Laden, whose dispatch he prudently credited to "the courage and the skill of our forces." Obama made a point of recalling having stirred controversy in his 2008 campaign for pledging to get bin Laden "even if it meant going into Pakistan."
And he insisted that "we're leading around the world, people have a new attitude toward America," citing surveys like those showing America once again the world's most admired country. "There's more confidence in our leadership," he concluded, pointing to the unaccustomed sight of Arab crowds waving American flags in Libya.
The president claimed credit for tightening the sanctions noose around Iran's and North Korea's nuclear programs, for renewal of alliances that "have never been stronger," and for "leading on behalf of freedom" in the Middle East and North Africa.
Obama made just a discreet mention of promoting change in Syria, and a passing reference to leading the global fight against the dangers of nuclear weapons. But he had not a word for his frustrated efforts to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Governor Romney told the veterans Tuesday that his own foreign policy approach derives from his "one overwhelming conviction and passion: This century must be an American Century." That century, he insisted, can only be secured by towering military strength. He sharply attacked last summer's deficit-reduction compromise that puts military spending on the chopping block along with domestic expenditure, describing the prospective sequestration as "the President's radical cuts in the military."
Romney took aim at the president's claim of strengthened alliances with an attack on Obama's decision to cancel the antimissile system the Bush administration had sought to install in Poland, a reversal of Bush policy he called "a unilateral concession" to Russia that unnerved Polish leaders (although most NATO allies seemed relieved to eliminate the so-called provocation). Romney suggested there is little point in having a working relationship with Russian leaders. By contrast, he balanced his suspicions of China with an explicit call "for China to be a partner for a stable and secure world."
The former governor was fiercest in denouncing the president's "shabby treatment" of Israel, even claiming that Obama has joined in "accusations, threats, and insults at the United Nations" against Israel. Strikingly, he did not criticize the president for what is arguably his biggest failure, failing to deliver on Mideast peace, leaving the impression that peace there is a fool's errand.
Romney was unequivocal on the corollary issue of Iran's nuclear program: "There must be a full suspension of any enrichment, period" -- the same red line as the Bush administration had set, unavailingly. And he assured the veterans of his resolve, in terms that Israeli political leaders would endorse as a commitment to military action: "I will use every means necessary to protect ourselves and the region, and to prevent the worst from happening while there is still time."
There were, to be sure, many diplomatic ambiguities in both candidates' presentations in Reno. And there is little reason to think this exchange will alter voters' perceptions.
But the sparring did make clear there would be a significant shift in America's direction if Mitt Romney comes to power -- including on some of the same issues on which Obama's predecessor had most estranged America from its strongest allies in Europe and Asia. Obama still has the edge.
Follow Jeffrey Laurenti on Twitter: www.twitter.com/J_Laurenti
Brava, Serena1313, for calling Romney out on an outright falsehood: "Obama never apologized for America nor did he bash Israel at the UN." On the other hand, Robert Kelley's vision of "not a dime's worth of difference" between the 2 parties is plainly not shared by most of the world. Romney's raging critique of Obama policies may be scattershot, but it spotlights a very deep difference that the rest of the world fully understands--the difference between the militarized unilateralism (think Bush) versus diplomacy-centered multilateralism (Obama). Clarcking ("thermonuclear war is now a reality") likewise faults my article for not attacking both candidates from left field, but I intended simply to contrast what their two speeches said about U.S. policy.
I applaud maggiesoup05's faith-based devotion to the gospel of Ayn Rand, and found particularly arresting her distinction between the two parties based on fish and fishing poles. I am disappointed that she did not share details on the fishing pole that conservative war-makers provided to Iraqis.
Bluedog24 asserts that one speech showed "substance, one didn't." But even Obama eschewed the weightiest issues: climate change, the global economy, peace-making in the Middle East, and peace-building after conflicts. We might have hoped for more than his campaign's checklist of 4 poll-tested Big Accomplishments. Still, Romney made a point of incoherence. On FP, this is a no-brainer.
Recycling Bush's talking points, Romney stated, "I will not surrender America’s leadership in the world. We must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose, and resolve in our might" as if the targets of his firmness and resolve will simply comply with his wishes. When that doesn't work he will bend the will of the world using the military. Translated means: perpetual wars.
Furthermore, Romney's criticisms of President Obama are baseless. Obama never apologized for America nor did he bash Israel at the UN. The "radical" military spending cuts are the GOP's idea, not Obama's. They are part of the deficit reduction deal that was reached last summer.
The American Century is PNAC, only repackaged operating under a different name, the members are the same. That is Mitt Romney's foreign policy in a nutshell.
The United States must stabilize itself. Indict the Wall St. cabal, indict the Fed members. Reinstitute the Glass-Steagall standard in US banking. Put the Fed into bankruptcy protection, recover the bailout trillions. Create the US National Bank that funds the 50 states, then fund the necessary economy platforms, the redevelopment of North America as proposed in the water and power, NAWAPA plan. Stop Perpetual War. No other options exist and time is wasting.
At this point it is very important to look at the Party politicies and their consequences. Much of what President Obama would have done was obstruced. That does not signal that they would fail.
What we know for certain has failed, is the Republican Party's "no restrictions" on Big business.
What we know is Bad capitalism has flowed most of our wealth into the hands of the 1%.
We know that where the money is plenty, with the 1% and in the Military Complex, Republicans won't ask them to cut back, but ask the 99% incomes to stay flatline and take away benifits. It's a double hit to the 99%...no increase in income, take away benifits, to pay the deficit down....and what have the 1% done?
We know for certain that there were no WMDs and we went into a war at a huge cost of money and lives, escalating the economic freefall.
We know that Bush came to office with no deficit and left the presidency with the nation in freefall.
There is not much the USA can do for the European crisis that will have effect on us.
President Obama has done well, if not perfect. Then again, there has not been a perfect president. They are human. Still, the Party platform is more important than Super-Pac rhetoric.
30 million Americans need a full time job, the economy is contracting its physical production, unable to support the present population's standard of living. 9 million homes.families were foreclosed on. The Fed in the midst of LIBOR bid and rate rigging demands more bailouts. Obama's 'save the banks, kill the people' policy deserves condemnation. Honestly this man could be impeached.
Obamas Economic,Social, Domestic and Foriegn polices will lead to the end of our individual freedoms, our independence, Americas security, Americas society.
His belief system is assnine. If I decide to not to educate my self, to work at a dead end job, not want to work harder to achive more I do not deserve to put my hand in someone elses pocket who choose to go to school, hold 2 jobs, always striving to excell.
Democrates do not want the individual to suceed, because they need people to be dependent on them to come for hand outs. If you are indepenent supporting yourself, not depending on the goverenment a democrate in not needed.
I love this old saying.
A Democrate will give you a fish daily and say see you tomorrow(sounds nice and compassionate) but a Republican will give you a fishing pole, teach you how to fish, tell you where the lake is and say You can do it!!!. (now that is empowering and loving. Showing you the sky is the limit, you can get more than 1 fish)
Of course not.
To Wit:
The bombshell briefing by senior military officers to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen in 2010. The team was dispatched by Commander General David Petraeus to brief the Pentagon on intelligence that Israeli intransigence in the peace process was jeopardizing American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and America was perceived as weak, ineffectual, and unable to stand up to Israel.
Ha'aretz, January 13, 2012:
“‘Israel is supposed to be working with us, not against us,’ ” Foreign Policy quoted an [American] intelligence officer as saying. ‘If they want to shed blood, it would help a lot if it was their blood and not ours. You know, they’re supposed to be a strategic asset. Well, guess what? There are a lot of people now, important people, who just don’t think that’s true.’”
In its 2004 report, the U.S. Senate 9/11 Commission declared that "mastermind of the 9/11 attacks," Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's "animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favouring Israel."
In its analysis of terrorism, the Pentagon's Defense Science Board concluded that "Muslims do not hate our freedom,...they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority [object] to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights...."
It's been Amateur Hour for the most part of the Obama Presidency when it comes to Foreign Policy.
He will let them go on gluttoning, and make the 99% pay more and more.
He has no clue and he makes that known...easy enough to see.