Sunday, October 21, 2012

Viewing Foreign Policy From 40,000 Feet

On Monday night President Obama and Governor Romney will meet in their third and final debate.  The subject is foreign policy.  With the polls showing an ever tightening race, this will be the last time these two men will have the opportunity to address 70 million Americans.
Unfortunately, this debate will probably begin with a heated discussion of the attack on our consulate in Benghazi and the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans.  The purpose of this cat fight will not be to better inform the public about a tragic event; but to throw raw meet at their respective political base.
Mitt Romney will say that the president bears responsibility for the death of four Americans because of his administration’s refusal to add additional security at the consulate.  He will say that the administration tried to cover up the fact that the breaching of the consulate on the anniversary of 9/11 was in fact an organized attack conducted by Al Qaeda or a similar terrorist organization.  And he will say that this attack is just further evidence of the erosion of the president’s weak foreign policy.
The president will no doubt counter with the fact that the administration put out the information they were receiving on the Benghazi attack in real time.  He will say that any inference of a cover-up is offensive.  And he will say that his doubling down on the number of troops in Afghanistan, his working with our allies to remove Kaddafi, his authorization of drone attacks which have decimated Al Qaeda leadership, his elimination of Bin Laden and the fact that thousands of Libyans took to the streets in condemnation of the Benghazi attack and in support of the US, are proof of a strong foreign policy that is working.
Hopefully this back and forth of political posturing will end after the first several minutes of the debate; after which the candidates will move on to a more substantive conversation of their world views.  Because foreign policy is a big picture topic that needs to be viewed from 40,000 feet; not micro-managed through the prism of gotcha politics. 
Columnist David Ignatius echoes our sentiments in his recent column in the Washington Post.
Ignatius cites an article by Michael Mazarr, a professor of strategy at the National War College. In the article titled: “The Risks of Ignoring Strategic Insolvency” which appears in the current issue of Washington Quarterly, Mazarr questions whether US military power needs to be “resized” to fit a changing world.  Mazarr contends that if the US fails to curb its international ambitions and tries to stretch its increasingly limited resources to cover all its traditional commitments it is destined to fail.  Mazarr doesn’t see the decline of American power but rather its overextension.
Ignatius quoting Mazarr: “The very definition of a grand strategy is holding ends and means in balance to promote the security and interests of the state.  Yet the postwar US approach to strategy is rapidly becoming insolvent and unsustainable.”  Mazarr points out several factors that are contributing to the insolvency of America’s traditional foreign strategy: US economic and budgetary difficulties; the emergence of new powers hostile to US interests; the ineffectiveness of traditional US military solutions (see Iraq and Afghanistan) and the growing resistance of the American people toward entering into another military conflict.
As Ignatius correctly states; “These are the strategic facts of life.  But every time a new crisis comes along the “correct” political response is: America should fix it.”
From our perspective the president seems to have a better handle on these changing dynamics than Governor Romney. 
The president understands the economic conditions here at home and consequently has called for a reduction in military spending.   When punitive action is required, the president has called for diplomacy, stringent sanctions and the patience to allow them to work.  When military force is deemed necessary he has increased the use of drones and Special Operations Forces and moved away from the traditional methods of heavy armor and boots on the ground.  And understanding the nation’s unwillingness to serve as the world’s policeman, he has built coalitions and called on our allies to share the burden.
Governor Romney has a different world view.  He believes that the only way to keep America secure is through tough talk and military force.  He believes that it is America’s destiny to be the world’s protector.  He has called for a massive increase in military spending in amounts exceeding (after adjustments for inflation) the treasure spent in WWII and the cold war.  His plan calls for enormous increases in battleships, destroyers, carriers and other traditional arms.   And he persists in these outdated armament requests even though the defense department has said publically that they do not want nor need them.
In additional to having an outdated view of America’s place in the world, the governor has been, shall we say, less than presidential in carrying out that message.  In fact, in the past several months he has had several opportunities to demonstrate his foreign policy bona fides and he has stumbled at every turn.  He turned what should have been a social visit to the British Prime Minister into an international incident when he managed to insult the London Olympic Organizing Committee.   When he responded to early reports of the Benghazi incident, his press conference was so ill-timed and short on facts that even his closest supporters cried out in embarrassment.  His highly promoted speech on foreign policy turned out to be little more than a recitation of strategic talking points that the president had already implemented.  And his clumsy efforts to catch the president in a lie at the last debate were fact checked by the moderator. To add insult to injury; members of his own staff do not believe he reads the foreign policy briefing papers they provide him.  Yet this is the man that almost half of the American people say they would trust with his finger on the nuclear button.
When it comes to America’s place in the world these candidates could not be any more different.  We hope that that this last debate will serve as a platform for a substantive discussion of those divergent views.
We share David Ignatius’ and Professor Mazarr’s views on the ever changing dynamics of America’s place on the world stage.  We thank David Ignatius for his reporting and Professor Mazarr’s for his insight.       
                   
  

No comments:

Post a Comment