Subject: [SocialistWorker.org] Obama and Romney have same foreign policy
-----
View original article here:
http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2012/05/29/obama-and-romney-have-same-for
Critical reading [1]: A SocialistWorker.org blog
======== OBAMA AND ROMNEY HAVE SAME FOREIGN POLICY ===========================
May 29, 2012 8:22 pm CDT
A long-time Washington establishment insider admits there is no significant
difference between the presidential candidates in terms of foreign policy.
--PG
Follow Critical Reading on Twitter: @CriticalReading [2]. Subscribe to
Critical Reading [3]'s public updates on Facebook.
.... Barack O'Romney [4]
Source: Foreign Policy
Ignore what the candidates say they'll do differently on foreign policy.
They're basically the same man.
BY AARON DAVID MILLER | MAY 23, 2012
If Barack Obama is reelected, he ought to consider making Mitt Romney his new
secretary of state. I propose this far-fetched howler not because I'm trying
to get into my own *Dumb Idea Hall of Fame*, or because white-male
secretaries of state seem to be going the way of the dodo at Foggy Bottom (we
haven't had one since Warren Christopher departed in 1997), or because I
believe deeply in bipartisanship. (Although I do; it's been a long time since
we've had a secretary of state who was from the opposing party, and it would
be great idea.)
I raise the idea to drive home a broader point. Despite his campaign
rhetoric, Romney would be quite comfortable carrying out President Obama's
foreign policy because it accords so closely with his own.
And that brings up an extraordinary fact. What has emerged in the second
decade after 9/11 is a remarkable consensus among Democrats and Republicans
on a core approach to the nation's foreign policy. It's certainly not a
perfect alignment. But rarely since the end of the Cold War has there been
this level of consensus. Indeed, while Americans may be divided, polarized
and dysfunctional about issues closer to home, we are really quite united in
how we see the world and what we should do about it.
Ever wondered why foreign policy hasn't figured all that prominently in the
2012 election campaign? Sure, the country is focused on the economy and
domestic priorities. And yes, Obama has so far avoided the kind of
foreign-policy disasters that would give the Republicans easy free shots. But
there's more to it than that: Romney has had a hard time identifying Obama's
foreign-policy vulnerabilities because there's just not that much difference
between the two.
A post 9/11 consensus is emerging that has bridged the ideological divide of
the Bush 43 years. And it's going to be pretty durable.
Paradoxically, both George W. Bush's successes and failures helped to create
this new consensus. His tough and largely successful approach to
counterterrorism -- specifically, keeping the homeland safe and keeping al
Qaeda and its affiliates at bay through use of special forces, drone attacks,
aggressive use of intelligence, and more effective cooperation among agencies
now forms a virtually unassailable bipartisan consensus. As shown through his
stepped-up drone campaign, Barack Obama has become George W. Bush on
steroids.
And Bush 43's failed policies -- a discretionary war in Iraq and a mismanaged
one in Afghanistan -- have had an equally profound effect. These adventures
created a counter-reaction against ill-advised military campaigns that is now
bipartisan theology as well.
To be sure, there are some differences between Romney and Obama. But with the
exception of Republicans taking a softer line on Israel and a tougher one on
Russia -- both stances that are unlikely to matter much in terms of actual
policy implementation -- there's a much greater convergence.
Yes, in the interests of winning votes, Romney will hone a few choice attacks
in the campaign to come: "The president is weak and an apologizer, I'm not!"
"The president doesn't believe in American leadership, I do!" These tropes,
however, are either meaningless or inaccurate, and aren't likely to resonate
much with a foreign policy-fatigued public.
Four key principles drive the new post, post-9/11 consensus:
*1. Fix Our Broken House:* These days, any sentient politician understands
that the key to American power abroad is inextricably linked to the state of
our union here at home. Whether or not our leaders are prepared to pay the
political price to address these domestic problems is another matter. But the
talking points seem pretty similar: Build our nation first, not anyone
else's. Watch what you're spending abroad, and focus on the five deadly Ds at
home -- debt, deficit, dysfunctional politics, decaying infrastructure, and
dependence on Middle East hydrocarbons.
Whether it's a Democratic or Republican president, domestic priorities have
set the tone for a retrenchment in America's global footprint for years to
come. When it comes to risky foreign-policy initiatives, expect politicians
to take a long look in the rear-view mirror first.
*2. But Defend It:* The second core consensus is the need to kill the bad
guys abroad before they can kill us, but to do it without invading nations
and thus becoming responsible for rebuilding them. Bush 43, for all his other
foreign-policy failures, can boast that there were no attacks on the
continental United States after 9/11, and Obama -- despite a few near misses
-- has maintained the record.
Romney would try just as hard. In this environment, no U.S. president -- if
presented with reliable and actionable intel -- would have declined to order
a hit on Osama bin Laden in Pakistan or anywhere else. Indeed, the president
should be careful about getting into a game of "my predator drone is bigger
than yours" with Romney. Fighting terrorists is now a truly bipartisan
effort.
*3. End Wars, Don't Begin Them:* Sadly, the dominant question of America's
21st century conflicts so far is not "can we win?" but "when can we leave?"
That was the central question that has occupied Obama's decision-making in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
And no matter who becomes president in 2012, there's not going to be much
enthusiasm for further adventures abroad or trillion-dollar experiments in
nation-building. Democrats and Republicans may finally have broken the code:
Discretionary wars and interventions require higher standards for success
because, well, they're wars of choice. And our leaders need to be cruel and
unforgiving about deciding not only how and when to wage them, but also how
to get in and out of them if they do.
The new caution is a bipartisan one. President Romney would have steered
clear of unilateral intervention in Libya, and been as cautious as Obama
(rightly) has been on Syria. (Iran is a special case, which I will address
below.)
*4. Subcontract, Create a Committee and a Process Whenever Possible:* Whoever
came up with the term "leading from behind" erred only in the packaging.
Wrong choice of words; right idea. America can't save the world by itself,
nor should we expect to or be expected to by others. Let's be clear. We can
always lead from the front -- into disaster (see: Afghanistan, Iraq) -- and
who wants that?
Instead, the greater challenge is how to decide when and how to intervene
successfully in a way that's congruent with our interests and resources.
Multilateralism and process became dirty words during the George W. Bush
years. And, hey, they're not heroic measures. Indeed, they're time-consuming
and often messy because they depend on others. But they can be useful,
particularly when vital and core American national interests aren't involved.
Think Libya, a moderately successful policy run by committee -- or even a
messier situation like Syria, where there are no good options, and acting (or
not) with others can fill a vacuum until an opportunity for more concerted
action presents itself.
It's not only on these core assumptions that the candidates share a broad
agreement. These principles translate into specific policies where it would
be tough to tell the difference between a Romney and an Obama presidency:
*Iran:* Sorry, I just don't see any significant difference between the way
Obama is handling Iran's nuclear program and the way Romney might as
president. And that's because there's seems to be an inexorable arc to the
Iranian nuclear problem. If by 2013 sanctions and negotiations don't produce
a sustainable deal and Iran continues its quest for a nuclear weapon, one of
two things is going to happen: Israel is likely to strike, or we will.
If it's the former, both Obama and Romney would be there to defend the
Israelis and manage the mess that would follow. Both would be prepared to
intercede on Israel's behalf if and when it came to that. As for a U.S.
strike, it's becoming a bipartisan article of faith that the United States
will not permit Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. And both men are prepared
to use military strikes against Iran's nuclear sites as a last resort, even
if it only means a delay (and that's what it would mean) in Iran's quest for
nukes.
*Freedom Agenda:* The bloom went off this rose in George W. Bush's
administration. The Arab Spring has turned into a long cold winter -- the
prospects for the quick and easy rise of democracies in the Middle East are
slim to none. A Romney administration might produce a tougher tone in defense
of freedom (without any meaningful action) and perhaps more negative rhetoric
about Islamists, but would also confront the same bad options and limited
leverage Obama has now. On Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, and anywhere else
the United States is unable to direct the domestic politics in distant lands,
Romney would likely adopt much the same approach as the current
administration.
*Diplomatic Engagement:* Had you listened to Obama in 2009, you might very
well have concluded that he was out to change the world through engagement
and diplomacy. But that was then. Obama has learned quite a bit, and appears
to have come much closer to the tougher-minded Romney view on the merits of
engaging Hugo Chávez, the Kim regime in North Korea, the mullahs in Tehran,
and Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Conspicuously absent from this list of leaders
that Obama has seemingly written off is Vladimir Putin, who appears to be an
integral part of the White House's Iran strategy.
Romney has taken a much tougher line on Russia and China. Still, the
realities of governing would invariably soften the Romney campaign line that
Russia is *public enemy No. 1* and that China is a *currency manipulator*.
*Israel:* Paradoxically, the one issue where Romney and Obama might actually
differ is on the most bipartisan one of all -- Israel. Romney's views on
Israel are guided more by his gut instincts (see Bush 43) than Obama, whose
view of the Israelis is colder and more calculating.
The issue isn't support for Israel's security -- both would be committed to
that. It's that damn peace process, which keeps turning up like a bad penny.
Obama wants progress, and sees Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as largely
responsible for the lack of it. He may want to push some bold initiative in a
second term, but it won't be so easy to do. For Romney, the peace process
isn't going to be a priority unless the Israelis and Palestinians -- through
violence or diplomacy -- make it one.
The bottom line? The new consensus is that the world's a more challenging
place than ever, and both Democrats and Republicans are learning that we
can't control it. (Of course, we never did.) That doesn't mean that the
United States cannot lead or succeed in protecting its interests, it just
means its leaders need to be more disciplined about how and when to project
American power.
The new divide on foreign policy is clear -- and I, for one, am ecstatic
about it. It's not between left and right, liberal or conservative, or
Republican or Democrat. It's between making decisions that are smart, on the
one hand, or dumb on the other. And I'm hoping that the next president --
whoever he is -- knows exactly which side America wants to be on.
/Aaron David Miller is a distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars. His forthcoming book is titled Can America
Have Another Great President? "Reality Check [5]," his column for
*ForeignPolicy.com*, runs weekly. /
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has
not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making
such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this
site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. For more, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If
you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own
that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
[1] http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading
[2] https://twitter.com/#!/CriticalReading
[3] https://www.facebook.com/criticalreading
[4] http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/23/barack_oromney
[5] http://www.foreignpolicy.com/category/section/reality_check
