Romney Ups His Foreign Policy Stock Valuation

Last night I joined Rachel Maddow to talk about Mitt Romney's evolving views on Afghanistan.  At various times, Romney has said we needed to get out of the Afghanistan mess, agreeing for the most part at the time of early GOP debates with House Representative and then presidential candidate Michele Bachmann until shifting to a harder-line posture on staying in Afghanistan.

Romney, who has endorsed the general time frame of closing down most of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan at the end of 2014 has been critical of Obama's decision to drawdown the committed surge forces and bringing levels to 68,000.  Obama -- acting like a commander-in-chief should have listened to the advice of 'the generals' and then made a decision based on larger strategic factors and ordered that the surge troops be drawn out.  Romney has implied that Obama should not only 'listen to the generals' but should do what they tell him. 

Romney might want to go back and read testimony given by former ISAF Commander General David Petraeus about Afghanistan before Congress in which Petraeus said that the recommendations he was making were based on factors inside and related to Afghanistan alone -- but were not taking into account the larger "strategic situation."  Petraeus shied away from giving a strategic assessment of the value of Afghanistan in relation to other matters like America's posture with Iran, with the broader Middle East, with stability dynamics in South Asia -- particularly with Pakistan and India. 

Obama and his national security team lead by Tom Donilon and Denis McDonough have committed to a strategic rebalancing of US forces and long-term commitments. They are working to downsize America's vulnerability to the instability and challenges in the Middle East and South Asia which are sapping American resources and power and deploy to where global economic growth is shifting: Asia. 

If Mitt Romney re-reads his Citadel speech and checks out the Asia sections, he agrees that Asia needs more attention.

The clip of my discussion with Rachel Maddow follows below:

Rachel Maddow talks to Atlantic Editor-at-Large Steve Clemons about whether John McCain is pushing Mitt Romney into more hawkish, never leave Afghanistan position

While I have largely dismissed the foreign policy competence and coherence of Mitt Romney's strategic vision in the past, I'm seeing Romney up his game in a few hires he has made. 

First of all, the Romney team has brought on board former Department of State Under Secretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky to play a lead role on shaping his national security and foreign policy agenda and positions.  Dobriansky, who until recently was a senior executive with ThomsonReuters and once was vice president and director of the Washington operations for the Council on Foreign Relations, is a formidable and creative public intellectual.  I'm not sure she wrote the piece, but one could sense a different hand -- probably Paula Dobriansky's by my guess -- behind the interesting Mitt Romney Foreign Policy magazine op-ed, "Bowing to the Kremlin," in which he challenged Obama's caught-on-mic comments to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on ballistic missile defense.

The essay was tough-minded, internally consistent and coherent, and a real contrast to other Romney foreign policy commentary.

The next big hire that I mentioned to Rachel Maddow last evening was that Ric Grenell, a long-time communications expert who served as spokesman for four U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations, is now Romney's national security spokesman.  Grenell worked for former Senator Jack Danforth at the UN; then John Negroponte; then the affable John Bolton; and finally Zalmay Khalilzad.  During the long battle over John Bolton's Senate confirmation vote which he never received, Grenell was a tireless, tenacious, tough advocate for Bolton with the media.  I was one of those skeptical of John Bolton's UN confirmation, but I give Grenell credit for being fair-minded and serious with me. 

Foreign policy pundits and analysts are now going to have to reconsider Romney on foreign policy and national security and consider his positions more seriously. 

Presidents aren't just people -- they are franchises.  And with Dobriansky and Grenell, Romney has upped the stock value of his foreign policy operation.

-- Steve Clemons is Washington Editor at Large at The Atlantic, where this post first appeared. Clemons can be followed on Twitter at @SCClemons

 

Follow Steve Clemons on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SCClemons

Comments

[Rosalee Harris]

10:45 PM on 04/21/2012

The mere fact that Romeny can't talk to ordinary citizens is enough for me to be wary of his foreign policy credentials. If he cant talk to ordinary citizens I dont see how he is going to talk to foreign leaders without looking and sounding gauche awkward and downright embarassing. I still dont get why Romney thinks that politics is the place for him. He has the oratory skills of a toddler. He can't relate to human beings its scary to if heaven forbid he becomes President.

[wme98]

09:25 PM on 04/21/2012

Romney is a draft dodger and should be disqualified for that alone. He talks about going to war with Iran. Hey Mitt, how about some of those five sons enlist and go to the front lines or are they draft dodging cowards like their Father.

[unionave]

08:06 PM on 04/21/2012

Romney is just another international investor turned politician . The last admin was a cabal of international investors that , after being elected , set about getting the nation involved in their international squabbles and using we the people and our resources to settle their differences in places very few Americans ever heard of . At the same time pilfering our government revenues for far in to the future . Our paranoia levels are still primed with terror alert roadside signs that tax payers are paying for .

The average American never has and never will have representation in Congress , and in the likes of Romney will only see proposals for more of what the last admin dished out . Because those were policies that enhanced his wealth greatly .

[CaliforniaCeltic]

08:48 PM on 04/21/2012

The president already supports much of the economics of the last administration. They supported ALL the bush tax cuts in the short term with the economy fragile and only wants to get rid of part of the bush tax cuts in the years ahead, not all.

[maximus5757]

10:47 PM on 04/23/2012

The Bush Tax Cuts were given to everyone, but were mainly targeted to help the poor and the middle class. The Increased Child Tax credit, The 10% Tax Bracket, and Minimum Alternative Tax Fix did help the poor and middle class and put more of the Federal Income Tax burden onto the rich. Afterwards the top 1% pays 37% of all Federal Income Taxes, the top 10% pays 70% of all Federal Income Taxes and poor pays less-now 48% pays no Federal Income Taxes at all. If we had a POTUS that knew something about how to help small business increase business and put US citizens back to work instead we have a community organizer than only knows how to get free stuff for folks-not put people back to work.

[flossophy]

07:35 PM on 04/21/2012

Romney has zero foreign policy experience... at a time when the world is spiraIing in unknown directions. His weak grasp of geopolitics is frightening. This alone should disqualify him from the nomination.

[DONCAL]

07:33 PM on 04/21/2012

How can you be commander-in-chief if you let the generals tell you what to do? If JFK had,we would have been in nuclear conflict.

[ThinkCreeps]

06:00 PM on 04/21/2012

When Grenell jumping on something makes it better, it must have been in a truly dire state.

[tinarm]

06:14 PM on 04/21/2012

I know, they already had a huge problem with women so they go and pick Mr. Sexist?

[BigBearcatBill]

05:25 PM on 04/21/2012

Romney, his republicans and the Chinese will team to take over the world if he his elected, you want to bet on that Mitt? Why else do they want to get rid of regulators? So they can have the Chinese use the 99% here in factories they will build to turn you into their slaves, and the rich repubs will laugh all the way to the bank and their Hong Kong beach houses selling out America.

[ThatsTheTheWayItIs]

04:35 PM on 04/21/2012

Progressives just don't get it.
We have more military personnel in Germany and Japan, and WWII is long over.
We have no bases in the Middle East except in Af, right between Iran and Pakistan.

There will be US air bases in Afghanistan indefinitely. Nobody except ultra-liberals thinks otherwise.

[DONCAL]

07:52 PM on 04/21/2012

Troops in Europe are there to support NATO, but I agree, since the cold war is essentially over most of these troops could come home. The hospital base in Germany was a boon to our troops injured in Iraq and Afganistan.
Maybe we will keep air bases in Afganistan just to keep Pakistan(since they have nukes) from influenceing the region more than they are.

[falsy]

04:32 PM on 04/21/2012

Presidents are just people, but the person certainly matters. Romney does not have the fortitude, integrity, or moral compass to act as Commander in Chief. While John McCain never found a war he didn't like, atleast he was willing to address wasteful Pentagon spending at some level. Romney just wants to throw more money at the Pentagon in hopes that some will view him as tough on defense. The guy with the perfect hair, pressed jeans, and starched button down looks like a Brooks Brothers model, not a tough guy.

[unionave]

08:08 PM on 04/21/2012

Another Reagan .

[falsy]

01:05 PM on 04/22/2012

I wouldn't give him that much credit. I think Reagan was very likeable. He came across as authentic. Romney does not.

[sarahsahasbeen]

04:31 PM on 04/21/2012

Check out his other recent picks - Robert Bork to decide whom he should appoint to 500 judgeships and eventually the Supreme Court. Bork is the most far-rightist ever born and his selection alone should make thinking people afraid for the future.

[kywst09]

03:17 PM on 04/21/2012

Well, what did anyone expect, He has been lying and changing positions. Are you really surprised that his off shore investments are really much higher? .................and you can bet that this came out before any one else got wind of it

[Christian Howell]

02:44 PM on 04/21/2012

Romney's biggest problem is that he is the worst public speaker I've ever heard. GWB was better. Romney does appear very competent and confident in his speech when he''s relating exaggerated or false claims. No amount of advisers make a POTUS.

[iflew]

03:26 PM on 04/21/2012

Ronald Reagan was a terrific delegator. Sometimes he polled his cabinet and advisors. Sometimes he was wise enough to listen to George Schultz. I can't claim for sure if he was sort of limited for the job, but he had the help he needed to make a good impression on his admirers, and those for whom he lowered taxes.

[ThatsTheTheWayItIs]

04:41 PM on 04/21/2012

Reagan was an OK actor, that's all. I'm old enough to remember Death Valley Days, brought to you by Twenty Mule-Team Borax. His finest role, second only to standing next to The Wall and pretending to bring it down. Which happened under Bush BTW, but of course you all think it was Ronnie.

[Rosalee Harris]

10:47 PM on 04/21/2012

He is NOT a politician he has no business being in politics. He cant even have normal conversation with folks without insulting their cookies how can you trust him on the international scale.

[Paul Abrams]

02:26 PM on 04/21/2012

The basic problem remains. Romney has absolutely ZERO foreign policy experience. None. Nada. It is nice to gather the competing views, but Romney's only capacity is to see them in the context of domestic politics.
What Romney says now is irrelevant. It's that old 3AM phone call problem. Romney does not know who he is, has no foreign policy experience and does not have the ability to challenge, to filter, to decide.
He could get a hand from a VP pick, but thusfar his VP possibilities seem to be Governors with zero foreign policy experience themselves.

[demisfine]

02:47 PM on 04/21/2012

Thank you for adding these points.
I came away from the article with a felling of unease.
Romney is a businessman, so he knows to surround himself with smart people who have experience in areas outside his own realm of expertise.
That in no way means Mitt will follow their advice, know when to ask for it or listen to it, and that Mitt does not already have preconceived notions (there is our Cold War enemy lurking in the shadows).
While I believe in my heart Mitt will never win this election, I fear what could happen if he does.

[The Fosz]

03:57 PM on 04/21/2012

ROMNEY as a business man sees the American people as a commodity. We as Americans are nothing more than cattle to him. ROMNEY see us all line up at the polling places to vote for him as cattle line up for the slotter.

[tinarm]

05:49 PM on 04/21/2012

The scary thing is who Mitt is surrounding himself with, everyone of his advisers are W.'s. That should be enough to scare anyone.

[dwillisno1]

02:03 PM on 04/21/2012

If you say something on facebook and twitter that has to be scrubbed when offered a campaign job, you are a serious problem for your new boss. Do the Romney's of this world read the writings and comments of the people they hire?

[tinarm]

05:50 PM on 04/21/2012

I don't think it mattered they are planning to run a negative campaign just like they have against the other republican's. Grenell is a great choice if you want a sexist, nasty, quick, quip to bestow upon the masses of sheeple.

[MajorKong]

01:33 PM on 04/21/2012

The last thing we need is a neocon like Grenell anywhere near the levers of power ever again.

[falsy]

04:35 PM on 04/21/2012

Yeah he's written some of the most partisan extreme articles on the HuffPo.

[ThinkCreeps]

06:01 PM on 04/21/2012

I do believe that this piece has actually been written without irony. Which is absolutely remarkable.