A Romney Foreign Policy, part 2

On the War in Afghanistan, then candidate Romney in 2008 supported the Bush doctrine introduced after military operations began in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Using language that satisfied his Party’s conservative view on national security and neoconservatives firm attitude towards terror and those who would attack America; American military response. And Romney offered his opinion that military and nonmilitary resources should be used in an effort with other allied nations to assist the Arab world toward modernity and moderation. [6] As to on-going American involvement in Afghanistan Romney in both 2008 and 2012 campaigns supports U.S. military commanders decisions but also stresses that the responsibility lies with the Afghanis.
“I want those troops to come home based upon not politics, not based upon economics, but instead based upon the conditions on the ground determined by the generals … But I also think we have learned that our troops should not go off and try to fight a war of independence for another nation. Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan’s independence from the Taliban.” [7]
This does contradict his 2008 stated opposition to bringing American troops home based upon economics,
“There will be some who argue it’s too expensive now, we’ve got to bring the troops home right now, or others will say, politically we need to make one decision or another … You don’t make a decision about our involvement in a conflict based on dollars and cents alone or certainly not with regards to politics.” [8]
But supports his remarks in a June 14, 2011 debate when he shocked many party insiders, “It’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can — as soon as our generals think it’s OK,” Romney said. “One lesson we’ve learned in Afghanistan is that Americans cannot fight another nation’s war of independence.”[9]
Romney’s position on America’s relationship with Afghanistan’s neighbor Pakistan has been rather consistent since his first campaign. In July 2007, Romney had said, “In places like Pakistan America needs to work not just on a military front.” In support of his point, he would send in his proposed ‘Special Partnership Force’, a team of Central Intelligence Agency agents and Army special forces to work with the local population to aid in military support, gun supplies, and “to help make sure that they have the rule of law, water projects, bridges built.” [10] However, Romney has also offered contradictions though within the political perimeters of campaigning.
Romney criticized then-candidate Barack Obama in 2007 for stating that, as President, he [Obama] would launch military strikes against ‘high-value terrorist targets’ in Pakistan, even without the Pakistani government’s approval. [11] Romney had viewed this as arrogance. In 2011, after such a strike resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden, Romney said that, if he had been President, he would have done “exactly the same thing.” [12] This kind of opinion flexibility so-to-speak is fine as a candidate but more difficult when in a position of power. Another example is from his 2012 foreign policy paper entitled An American Century, Romney claims that the Obama administration is “undermining allies (p.3) only later to affirm that a Romney administration would “reassure allies” (p.13) while there is in fact very little clarification of who those allies are. Moreover, the dubious language regarding Pakistan on page 31-32 is quite stark,
It is in the interests of all three nations to see that Afghanistan and the Afghanistan/ Pakistan border region are rid of the Taliban and other insurgent groups…. Pakistan should understand that any connection between insurgent forces and Pakistan’s security and intelligence forces must be severed. The United States enjoys significant leverage over both of these nations. We should not be shy about using it. [13]
In a summer 2007 Foreign Affairs article, Romney highlighted his initiative, the aforementioned Partnership for Prosperity and Progress supporting moderate Muslims in secular education, modern financial and economic policies advocating democracy promotion. [14] This idea from his 2008 campaign in fact an extension of one of several points mentioned by President George W. Bush as part of the Global War on Terror; helping to defeat radical and violent Islam. [15] Furthermore, since the Arab Spring began the official policy of the United States under the Obama administration has also touched upon these exact themes with democracy promotion and economic support to new democracies such as Egypt and Tunisia.

Romney Foreign Policy, part 1

Introduction
In 2012 the United States of America will have a presidential election. While the democratic candidate, President Barak Obama seeks another four-year term; the Republican rivals are deliberating candidates in an elimination process known as primaries before a nominee is offered for the general election.
The front-runner for the Republican nomination is former Massachusetts’s governor Mitt Romney. There have been several Republican candidates, but none of them match the money, campaign organization and powerful connections within the Republican Party that Mr. Romney has. That is why many political analysts confidently state his status as front-runner amongst his rivals. While there have been debates between the Republican candidates on a variety of issues, including foreign policy, the specific question of what kind of Romney foreign policy towards the Middle East there would be if elected has not been significantly researched. That is the intent of this article.

Utilizing press statements, speeches, and writings, a picture can be drawn as to the intended nature of a Romney foreign policy. Furthermore, an investigation of the people who advise Mr. Romney on foreign policy, specifically their educational and professional backgrounds offer a glimpse into what advice may be offered if Mr. Romney would be elected president.
The working hypothesis is that only minor changes within the foreign policy of the United States will occur; in reality semantics. To the larger issue of U.S. foreign policy, a Romney Administration would not only continue the policy initiatives of the Obama Administration but those during the George W. Bush presidency too. On topics ranging from Iran’s nuclear program, support for democracy movements in the Middle East region, specifically in Egypt, Libya, and Syria, the United States relationship with Iraq and finally American involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there will not be any significant change.
The Romney view of the Middle East
The view of the Middle East region and all its complexities for the United States by Mitt Romney as candidate for president is evident in his publically stated positions from his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns.
During the 2008 Republican presidential primaries the Middle East was discussed in both debates between candidates. These primaries took place while the surge strategy in Iraq was being implemented. On the issue of Iraq, Romney was in favor the surge strategy. This put him squarely behind the policy of then-President George W. Bush. Also, in a Washington Post biographical interview he spoke against setting a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal in a belief that such statements gave Iraqi insurgents the knowledge of when to increase attacks in efforts to sow sectarian conflict as well as Iraqi neighbors who would take advantage of a weak country and try to influence Iraq’s domestic and foreign affairs stating specifically,
“now or dividing Iraq up into parts and later walking away would present grave risks to the United States and the world. Iran could seize the Shiite south, al Qaeda could dominate the Sunni west, and Kurdish nationalism could destabilize the border with Turkey. A regional conflict could ensue, perhaps even requiring the return of U.S. troops under far worse circumstances.” [1]
In addition to support of the surge strategy Romney was in favor of continued efforts to build democracy within Iraq and critical of the conciliatory talk then-presidential candidate Barack Obama had stated he would meet with leaders of nations hostile to the United States, including Syria and Iran in his first year as president. Stating an opposing viewpoint Romney said bluntly, “Having the president meet with the authoritarian tyrants of the world is remarkably poor judgment.” [2] Romney reiterated his view of opposition to authoritarian regimes focusing most on Iran in the 2012 campaign.

On Iran, while Romney “does not believe that the US is unable to deal with Iran military. He would not use ground forces for a possible eventual attack on Iran but instead would use “blockade, bombardment and surgical military strikes” for the purpose.” [3] Asked in the New Hampshire Republican debate, if he agreed “that the use of tactical nuclear weapons potentially, would be possible if that were the only way to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb?” Romney responded
“You don’t take options off the table, but what you do is stand back and say, ‘What’s going on here?’ You see what’s happening in Sudan and Afghanistan, in Iraq and Iran. All over the world, we’re seeing the same thing happening, and that is people are testing the United States of America. And we have to make sure they understand that we’re not arrogant; we have resolve. And we have the strength to protect our interests and to protect people who love liberty.” [4]
Romney has also tried to influence world opinion against Iran as early as his 2008 presidential run by requesting the United Nations not allow Iran’s president to speak at the opening of the 62nd session of the United Nations General Assembly where Iranian President Ahmadinejad was scheduled to speak by giving a veiled threat to stop U.S. funding of the U.N. [5] Once again, political rhetoric is only part of the full answer. A view from his official campaign website Romney’s statements in fact support a continuity of official U.S. policy towards Iran. Romney is in favor of economic sanctions, including denying Iran access to international banking, discouraging it from obtaining credit and divesting from companies that support Iranian regime’s hazardous actions. And finally, diplomatic isolation, which coincidentally already exist between the two nations Furthermore, in an overt recognition of U.S. support of the so-called 2009 Green Revolution, Romney would support the Iranian opposition by improving the flow of information to the Iranian population about its own government’s repressive activities and refusing to stand silent while the Iranian regime ruthlessly terrorizes its own people. However, the aforementioned positions are all policy actions begun by President George W. Bush in 2008 or intensified by the Obama administration in 2010 and 2011.

Convention Politics

The current Republican Party leaders or as some in the media has named them ‘elders’ are worried. This group of party members: donors, influential national public figures and aging politicos from decades ago are not happy with the fractured, undisciplined, and unpredictable route the primaries, and thus the nominating process is taking.

The Republican Party is known for its order, hierarchy, predictably. Former Majority Leader Trent Lott may have titled his political memoir “Herding Cats” but this has never really been the truth of the party. Republican politicians, even in disagreement, publicly “toe” the party line. Those politicians never publicly disagree with their leader, in particular if he is the President. So, in brief there is order and there is hierarchy.

One follows orders from the bosses above or behind the closed doors. If you are running for national public office and are unsuccessful the first time, just wait your turn and you will have your chance. One only has to look at the recent patterns of the Party nominations. Dole in 1996 (after waiting behind George H.W. Bush) McCain in 2008 (after waiting behind George W. Bush) and the script was supposed to be Romney in 2012 (after waiting behind McCain in 2008). This may still be the final result.

But what would be so wrong with a convention battle between supporters of Mitt Romney and supporters of Rick Santorum?

Actually, when last did the Republicans go into a convention without the nominee ‘preordained’ so to speak?

Actually, one does not have to look to far. It was former California Governor Ronald Reagan who nearly toppled incumbent President Gerald Ford at the 1976 convention in Kansas City by securing a large bloc of votes in the North Carolina primary. This was the last convention where the outcome of the nomination battle was in doubt.

In Tampa Bay in 2012, I think it would be good for the Republicans to have a internal party debate on who they want as their candidate. And for the general voters in America, a public debate on what the Party actually stands for; its values and principles and beliefs. Let it be raucous with those who support the Tea Party and, dare I label, “establishment” Republicans fighting it out for the direction of the Party. This may in fact be the chance to fight for the soul of the party. Those supporters of Santorum who if he is successful in Ohio may repeat an upset performance begun by Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater who won the nomination in 1964 , easily turning away Governor William Scranton and others more favorable to the party establishment.

Then again, the modern Republicans are predictable. So, we should expect the expected.

Nuclear Iran

With the threats from Iran coming in weekly doses now, there is a concern that actions from the U.S. and Israel, long considered hypothetical, may become reality.
This is not really a positive prospect for President Obama seeking reelection nor is it positive for the peace process between Israel and Palestine; the modern Palestinian state will consist of the Gaza strip, controlled by Hezbollah, which in turn is financially supported by Iran.
As the new year unfolds with more international ‘worries’ one is what will happen to the region of the Middle East with a nuclear Iran?
The answer for the U.S. is one that President Obama does not want to make–military action and the answer for Israel is equally unsettling; their very existence is called into question.

Regime Change, Again

As world leaders and NATO commanders turn their attention to the new mission-regime change, I have not surprised. Rather, it confirms two long-held suspicions.

The first that in the Middle East uprisings also popularly being called Arab Spring, there is not mediation. The Western nations MUST and will choose sides. Any attempt at being one the ‘sidelines’ or noncommittal is utterly false.

The second is a bit more problematic, because there will be many people who will disagree with my proposition. But, here it is. Removing Hussain in Iraq if not in 2003 maybe, just maybe would be the task now in 2011. This has complications morally and ethically of course and will cause many people to think hard about the arguments and digital ink spilled in the last nine years. Still, the events and evidence as they unfold throughout the region do point to this very real alternative possibility.

I am not going to enter into debate on whether the regime change in Iraq is a possible cause for the various demonstrations-revolutions-domestic regime changes taking place in the last few months. This is similar to the ‘what came first, the chicken or the egg’ arguments.

Still, food for thought…

Arab Spring?

In the past few months social and political revolt has led to revolution in many Middle Eastern nations.

After a tepid start the US it appears has chosen to support ‘the people’ against the leaders from Egypt and Bahrain to Lybia.

As a result US foreign policy has changed. However it is not an ideological or historic shift, despite what President Obama may say and other bloggers write.

It is a continuation of strategic national interest first and concern for the peoples of the region second.

The idea now within the fp of WH advisors is to have the US champion ‘democratic’ change wherever it is happening in the region as quickly as possible e.g. Yeman.

The test will be Saudi Arabia and change will come before the end of this year.

The broader question is if this as the Western media has called it an Arab Spring? Or a longer, but ultimately abortive attempt such as in 2009?

Time will time.

It’s Not Over

With unrest continuing in Egypt, the “winds” of change in this region continue.

Protests over issues like poverty, wages, even politics has happened before. This time though it is more widespread and watchers can be cautious for what happens in Cairo in the next 48 hours may determine the fate of ME goepolitics for decades.