Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

Opinion: Serious foreign policy debate needed

October 22, 2012

Advertisement

If you’re still hoping for a serious foreign-policy debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama, your last chance is tonight, when the candidates will focus on global issues.

Don’t get your hopes up, however. For one thing, the two men know the public isn’t focused on foreign affairs, which was barely raised by the audience at last Tuesday’s town-hall discussion.

For another, the most serious security challenges confronting the country — in the Mideast and South Asia — are so complex and fluid, it’s hard to provide clear answers. This makes for a lot of posturing by Romney (it’s easier for a challenger to insist the answers are obvious) and for oversimplification by Obama.

In the hope that tonight’s moderator, Bob Schieffer, can prod the two men to candor, here’s what I’d like to see them address:

First, enough already about the attack on our mission in Benghazi, Libya. Amazingly, this was one of only two foreign-policy questions Tuesday. (The other, on China, elicited routine Beijing-bashing by both men.)

The Benghazi attack is not the most pressing national security question that confronts us. Issues of diplomatic security fall under the purview of midlevel State Department bureaucrats, not the White House. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has taken responsibility for any security failures — but so should Republicans who voted to cut the budget for future embassy security needs.

Let’s listen to the father of Chris Stevens, the ambassador killed in Benghazi, who has urged that this tragic episode be removed from election politics. Instead, could we please hear a serious discussion of how to deal with new Islamic realities after the Arab Spring?

Romney argues that the Islamists emerged because Obama didn’t sufficiently support democratic forces in the region. But, a bit belatedly, Obama did back Tunisian, Egyptian and Yemeni rebels in their struggle. Once their dictators fell, their publics voted Islamists into office, with hard-line Salafis on the margins. Nothing Washington did could have made those elections turn out the way we hoped.

So let’s have a discussion: Should the United States support Arab rebellions wherever they lead? Should it support Arab democracy if voters choose governments we don’t like?

Would Romney repudiate Islamic governments that won legitimate elections? Will Obama (or Romney) cut off aid to an Islamic government in Egypt if it represses women and minorities? What if that Egyptian government then threatens to abrogate its peace treaty with Israel? Can this circle be squared?

And let’s have an honest discussion about Syria, whose sectarian civil war is poisoning the region. Obama is holding back, letting the Arab Gulf states provide Syrian rebels with light (and inadequate) weapons.

Romney chastises the president for timidity on Syria yet differs from him but little: He would only urge the Saudis and Qataris to provide heavier arms to “good” rebels. However, outsourcing this effort is risky: The Gulf states are more likely to aid the Islamists. What happened to Romney’s “leading from the front”?

The candidates should tell us how they would choose between two bad options: Would they let the sectarian war continue, even if it spreads all over the region? Assist Syrian rebels who may well turn against us? Let’s hear it, Mitt. What say you, Obama? No simple answers here.

And on to Iran. Obama says he’ll prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Romney says he’ll prevent Tehran from getting the “capacity” to build a weapon.

Capacity means the production of sufficient fissile material that Iran, in theory, could further enrich to bomb-grade capacity and, ultimately, attach to a weapon (which also takes time to design). Capacity is also the red line used by Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who says Iran will acquire it within six months.

Does Romney really mean he’d go to war next spring, on Netanyahu’s schedule? Would he really immerse the United States in another Mideast conflict in his first term? As for Obama, how will he know when Iran is on the verge of getting a weapon?

And is Iran — whose economy is reeling from Obama’s sanctions — really the greatest security threat the United States faces? What about Pakistan, which is permeated with Islamist terrorists and has dozens of nuclear bombs?

This brings us to the 11-year-old war in Afghanistan, a subject both candidates are pretty much avoiding. Joe Biden said in the vice presidential debate that “we are leaving in 2014, period.” His sparring partner, Republican Paul Ryan, concurred on that date.

Yet everyone knows the war is going badly. Despite Romney’s hints that he might slow the withdrawal, the American public wants this war to end.

Will Obama agree to leave a follow-on force, something his team is negotiating, which might stabilize the country? If the Afghan forces we’ve trained collapse as we exit, what then? Does either candidate have an answer?

Will Romney agree, despite his disdain for negotiations, to talk with senior Taliban who seek a deal? Does either man have any new ideas on policy toward Pakistan, which provides safe haven for Taliban leaders?

Whatever the weaknesses of Obama on these issues, I’ve heard no clear alternatives from Romney, and no recognition of the global changes of the last decade. I hope Schieffer will press both candidates for real, not canned, answers. But my expectations aren’t high.

— Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Comments

rockchalk1977 1 year, 6 months ago

It's no surprise Castro, Chavez, and Putin have all endorsed Obama. Foreign leaders like these view Obama as weak and Romney should highlight this weakness tonight. Obama's puzzling lead from behind foreign policy has diminished America in so many ways. I'm sure Obama will attempt to take credit for winning the war in Afghanistan, yet he voted against the 2007 troop surge. Obama called the Fort Hood massacre workplace violence even though the gunman Nidal Hasan has expressed his support for suicide bombings and killing civilians. Terrorism should be called out when it happens because victim families deserve better. Benghazi-gate is a political cover up of major proportions and will soon be exposed for what it is. Tonight's debate will be the final nail in Obama's political coffin. January 20, 2013... the end of an error!

1

Armstrong 1 year, 6 months ago

This should be a cake walk for Mitt. Barry has to defend his record, a daunting task for someone who leads from behind and has to overcome such little fiascos as Fastand furious, Benghazi, foreign trade... Barry also has to show his "foreign policy" is effective. I don't envy Barry tonight.

1

observant 1 year, 6 months ago

To have a serious discussion, Romney needs to first understand what a foreign policy is. He's is more clueless than W was.

3

pat_mcgill 1 year, 6 months ago

With the endorsement of other great world leaders, how can Obama not win? It's simple.

0

SageonPage 1 year, 6 months ago

Our child president, Little Barry Soetoro likes to lead with a wet finger in the air. He also thinks it's safer to 'lead' from behind, and yes that is a safe place for a coward to lead from. Lil' Barry Soetoro has disrespected our only ally in the Middle East, Israel. Lil' Barry needs to listen to Bibi Netanyahu or get out of the way and let an adult run our country and join forces with Israel to deal with rogue countries in this very dangerous period in history.

3

atiopatioo 1 year, 6 months ago

At least Romney wasn't raised by Sunni. He has that going for him.

The problem for Obama is, people have seen the realities of how little he does as a world leader. Basically, he is not a world leader. He didn't build that position he is in, someone else did.

To Romney's disadvantage, he does not have Putins, Castros or Chavez complex support. Without this critical support, this alone may lose it for Romney.

http://times247.com/articles/obama-receives-endorsements-from-three-dictators

0

Paul R Getto 1 year, 6 months ago

Good luck getting a good discussion. The challenger always has easy answers. The incumbents are already stuck with the realities, which are always messy in the Middle East.

4

Flap Doodle 1 year, 6 months ago

Both the regime in Iran and the regime in DC have denied that such talks have been arranged. Leave us stick to reality for the moment.

3

Richard Heckler 1 year, 6 months ago

It was noted in the news yesterday Iran has signaled it is time to talk. Perhaps economic sanctions are working.

Engaging Iran in war would significantly increase the cost of gasoline for a long time. Thus increase the cost of living in the USA across the board.

1

Richard Heckler 1 year, 6 months ago

This Libya matter is bogus on the Romney side. Revealing too much could put our soldiers in more risk than ever. So I blame the Romney campaign and the news media for not dropping this matter yesterday. Romney is quite a reckless operator

This is a dangerous foreign policy established by the right wing that control the repub party.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century

America needs to kill that above PNAC policy. It cost too much money and smells like Hitler.

1

JonasGrumby 1 year, 6 months ago

"First, enough already about the attack on our mission in Benghazi, Libya."

Translation: The murder of the first U.S. ambassador since 1979 and the subsequent shifting narration concerning what happened in Benghazi hurts Obama. Move along.

"The Benghazi attack is not the most pressing national security question that confronts us. Issues of diplomatic security fall under the purview of midlevel State Department bureaucrats, not the White House. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has taken responsibility for any security failures — but so should Republicans who voted to cut the budget for future embassy security needs."

FUTURE security needs? How can the GOP be held responsible for something that has not yet occurred?

"Let’s listen to the father of Chris Stevens, the ambassador killed in Benghazi, who has urged that this tragic episode be removed from election politics."

How about the mother of one of the slain former Navy Seals, who is upset about Obama's "optimal" comments? Do we ignore her concerns? Why is her opinion of less value than the ambassador's father? And why shouldn't a "successful" al Qaeda attack be an issue after Obama claimed that al Qaeda has been decimated?

6

Commenting has been disabled for this item.