Read clips, of course, about Mitt Romney's stiff-backed challenge to President Obama on Iran. The former Massachusetts governor and 2004 presidential candidate wants "withering" sanctions to be levied on Iran. But his speech, delivered today to an AIPAC forum in San Diego, is worth reading in its entirety. It's a distillation of how conservatives see Obama's approach to foreign policy. Since Romney may well run against Obama in 2012, it's a useful guide to his thinking. RomneyAIPAC.doc
Unlike Bush, Romney has few ties to the conservative foreign policy establishment. His father wasn't a favorite of Saudi princes or of the Chinese leadership. His world is unipolar: America is the single major force for good -- and there are numerous threats and many potential rivals. Romney's America remains the beacon of hope. He mocks Obama as wanting "[a] world in which America is more attuned to the approbation of the United Nations than to its ally Israel is a world in peril."
If it sounds like we've had this debate before -- in 2008, in the midterms of 2006, in 2004 -- we have. In 2008, Obama won it. In 2012, conservative strategists are betting -- hoping -- that public opinion swings back into the comfortable nest of clarity, certainty and strength projection. ("Once an outstretched hand is met with a clenched fist, it becomes a symbol of weakness and impotence," Romney says.)
"My concern extends to our entire foreign policy. If the U.S. Government engages tyrannies and autocracies -- countries like Iran and North Korea, Syria and Russia, Sudan and Zimbabwe -- based on the conviction that we are dealing with common interests more than competing interests, it will not end well."
How would Romney engage Russia? He wouldn't. Indeed, he implies that China and Russia threaten "liberty and peace."
"Russia is returning to its authoritarian ways, fueled by its energy stranglehold on Europe. China has married the power of free enterprise with the oppression of Communist rule," he said.
"When Poland and the Czech Republic are humiliated by us, they lose confidence in America's support for them, and they may decide that they must incline more toward Russia," he said of the decision to change gears on missile defense in Europe.
"If our friends in Latin America like Colombia become convinced that we are turning our back on them, they may feel compelled to become more accommodative to Hugo Chavez."
"If Japan believes the United States is weakening its commitment in the Pacific, it may distance itself from America and draw closer to China."
He urges a tougher line against the Arab world.
Consider how little we ask of the Arab world. Why is it that only Egypt and Jordan have peace agreements with Israel? What about Saudi Arabia? The Saudi government will not even sit in the same room as the Israelis, let alone normalize relations or work towards a realistic peace agreement. In 2007, at the height of the Olmert-Abbas peace track, the Saudis were demanding that more U.S. companies comply with their boycott of Israel."
One note here: presidential candidates have the luxury of talking tough about conventional American rivals. When they become presidents, they inevitably soften their voices. George W. Bush was humble during the campaign, humble before 9/11, aggressive after 9/11 and conciliatory from 2006 onward.
Its pure campaigning, but who does fear or respect the United States?
Iran?
The Taliban?
Karzai?
Current Israeli government?
North Korea?
Somalian Pirates?
Sudan?
France or UK - who abstained over the Goldstone Report?
Hugo Chavez?
China?
Russia?
If Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons, who will stop them?
Can Israel?
Can the US?
Can Europe?
Russia won't.
China won't.
Iran will have nuclear weapons. as of now its a done deal, unless the completely unexpected happens from the this US administration. We can expect Turkey to publicly announce a nuclear weapons program within the next twelve months. Who's going to prevent that?
I have to say, the hypotheticals Mitt uses in this speech are just beyond stupid. The grand Chinese-Japanese alliance, anyone? It's like he forgot about recent history!
In any event, we have to give Obama's foreign policy approach time to bear fruit. We also have to understand that we invaded 2 foreign countries in the past 8 years and that doesn't seem to have anyone shaking in their boots anymore. In fact, most would argue that it has severely weakened us...so if steamrolling two countries (and then getting bogged down in them) doesn't cause people to fear us, what do we have to do? Show pictures of Bikini Island 2? Just strikes me as a little juvenile at this point to run around with our chests puffed up so that people "fear" us.
Hey Marc, why is Mittster's speech worth reading? Where does he ever diverge from mainstream Republican philosophy? I don't see a single new or surprising observation on anything here?
If Romney is worried about other countries 'fearing' us. Romney is not the person for the job, that is for sure. Romney makes vast and broad claims, without the character to back them up. Romney shows his fear, by refusing to have had himself or any of his family serve in the military forces, even in a soft desk job.
Romney is trying to toss spaghetti and see what sticks, the only thing which is happening; however, is Romney is showing himself to be a wet noodle.
I've read a few articles that point out that Obama is a Type B President, kind of like a cockroach (I'm not making this up) who rolls over on its back to attract sympathy or reduce aggression. He is one of the few, if not the first, such President America has ever had, who might be classified as Type B.
It is interesting to be able to contrast that with Romney's type A stance. (Bush, being beaten down for eight long years, seemed to be somewhere in the middle toward the end of his Presidency.)
Both have some merit, but I personally believe Romney's approach will work better for America and its allies.
World politics are a game of chess, and Obama seems to be playing peacemaker by giving up all of his pieces but the King, and may inevitably trade in that King for a Pawn when his current strategy is insufficient.
The problem is, that leaves us in a very poor strategic place from then on, and assumes that our opponent(s), who are many, are willing to take appeasement as a peace offering and call the game a draw. Would you call a game a draw if you had all the power? What if the cockroach was very charismatic and gave you a lot of money?
Creative, but poor public policy that will make America poor, weak, and possibly captive--another great contrast to Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America.
So great move Obama, moving us half way down the world food chain. :) Is America more Eagle or Turkey? Or will it be veggie burger?