Mitt Romney gave a speech at the Virginia
Military Institute today which focuses on U.S. Middle East policy. There are some good
points in this speech that are definite steps forward. Yet without attacking
President Barack Obama's policy with more detail or confronting the
revolutionary Islamist threat more directly, can Romney persuade people that
his strategy would be much better?
He begins by quoting former Lexington, Virginia, resident George
Marshall, who led the U.S. military during World War II and later became
secretary of state and secretary of defense:
“The only way human beings can win a war is to prevent
it.” Those words were true in his time -- and they still echo in ours.
Romney views President Barack Obama
as vulnerable on his international leadership, or rather lack of it. Romney
argues that Obama’s policies are contributing to regional instability and
future wars in the Middle East:
Our friends and allies across the globe do not want less American
leadership. They want more—more of our moral support, more of our security
cooperation, more of our trade, and more of our assistance in building free
societies and thriving economies.
The attacks on America last month…are expressions of a larger
struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East….
Romney further says that the cause
of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya was not a video:
[It was] terrorists who use violence to impose their dark
ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control
much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.
Here, Romney does not recognize the
systematic revolutionary Islamist challenge to U.S. interests. We are back on
the safe ground -- on which Obama basically agrees -- that the problem is just
al-Qaeda, rather than also the Muslim Brotherhood and other Salafist groups.
(Obama’s problem is that having said he already defeated al-Qaeda, he cannot
admit that this supposedly destroyed group just assassinated an American
ambassador.)
If Romney wants to focus his policy
on just al-Qaeda, how can he compete with Obama's ability to point out that he
killed Osama bin Laden? One could even argue that Romney's approach -- the
problem is bad terrorists who kill Americans -- plays into Obama's hands.
Obviously, Romney should not
foreclose his options in dealing with Egypt, for example, by declaring its
regime to be an enemy -- despite the fact that even Obama has admitted it is no
longer an ally. Yet Romney could have done better in defining the situation.
But here is the best phrase in the speech:
The greater tragedy of it all is that we are
missing an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the
Middle East—friends who are fighting for their own futures against the very
same violent extremists, and evil tyrants, and angry mobs who seek to harm
us. Unfortunately, so many of these people who could be our friends feel
that our President is indifferent to their quest for freedom and dignity. As
one Syrian woman put it, “We will not forget that you forgot about us.
This suggests that Romney “gets it,”
regarding the need to support real moderate or at least anti-Islamist forces.
So what would
Romney do if he became president? He says:
I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States
and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons
capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will
tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence
of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf
the region -- and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and
coordination. For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through
actions -- not just words -- that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated.
Romney is basically saying: I will be credibly tougher. The
problem is that Obama can say that he has done these specific things. He does
not deal with the wider strategic problem of Iranian ambitions or attitudes
toward the opposition in that country. There is no substantive difference with
Obama’s stated policy, nor is there a discussion -- it is understandable that
Romney wants to avoid this -- of how he would view an attack on Iran or even
the possibility of containing Iran. His statement is thus reasonable, but not
compelling in proving that Romney would do a better job.
His second point is that he would:
… Champion free trade and restore it as a critical element of our
strategy, both in the Middle East and across the world.
He adds that Obama has not signed
any new trade agreements. It is not clear how trade agreements would affect the
Middle East situation.
Third:
“No friend of America will question our
commitment to support them… no enemy that attacks America will question our
resolve to defeat them… and no one anywhere, friend or foe, will doubt
America’s capability to back up our words….I will support friends across the
Middle East who share our values, but need help defending them and their sovereignty
against our common enemies.”
But what countries does Romney have
in mind? He has also stated the issue in a way that traps himself. Who shares
U.S. values but needs help in defending themselves? Saudi Arabia, Jordan,
Algeria, Morocco, and the smaller Gulf emirates need U.S. help, but could not
be said to share American values. So who is he talking about?
Fourth:
In Libya, I will support the Libyan people’s efforts to forge a
lasting government that represents all of them, and I will vigorously pursue the
terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed Americans.
Again, though, the Obama
administration has also worked to help form a government in Libya and promises
to catch the terrorists. We once more face the issue of Romney asserting that
he will be tougher and do a better job but with no clear differentiation on his
policy. Those who understand that he would be more determined are already
voting for him. How would this convince anyone else?
Fifth:
In Egypt, I will use our influence -- including clear conditions
on our aid -- to urge the new government to represent all Egyptians, to build
democratic institutions, and to maintain its peace treaty with Israel. And we
must persuade our friends and allies to place similar stipulations on their
aid.
This is nice rhetoric but again it
is identical to Obama policy declarations. The one new point is that U.S. aid
would be conditioned on fair treatment of minorities and maintenance of the
treaty with Israel.
On aid, Romney explained that he would reform it “to create
incentives for good governance, free enterprise, and greater trade…. And I will
make it clear to the recipients of our aid that, in return for our material
support, they must meet the responsibilities of every decent modern
government—to respect the rights of all of their citizens, including women and
minorities… to ensure space for civil society, a free media, political parties,
and an independent judiciary… and to abide by their international commitments
to protect our diplomats and our property.”
The most
original statement is on Syria:
In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize
those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the
arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. Iran is
sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic
defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our
international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that
defeat to Iran -- rather than sitting on the sidelines. It is essential
that we develop influence with those forces in Syria that will one day lead a
country that sits at the heart of the Middle East.
This speaks of more activism in
helping the rebels and -- most important -- the moderates among them. He puts the
civil war in the context of combatting Iranian influence, but to what extent
would this justify backing anyone -- Salafists and Muslim Brothers -- who might
overthrow the regime and “one day lead” Syria?
On Afghanistan, he says that he:
… will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan
security forces by the end of 2014.
Yet what does this mean? Romney
opposed “a politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the
same extremists who ravaged their country and used it to launch the attacks of
9/11.”
Romney makes a similar hint on Iraq where he says “costly
gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent
Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of
Iran. And yet, America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has
been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The
President tried—and failed—to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that
would have better secured our gains.”
This hints
that Romney would consider keeping U.S. troops there longer. Yet does it make
sense for Americans to keep fighting a war on behalf of Afghan allies who often
kill U.S. soldiers in pursuit of a stability that is unlikely to come to that
country? This could end up being even worse than Obama’s policy.
Finally, Romney criticizes
Obama’s policy on Israel:
“The President explicitly stated that his
goal was to put `daylight’ between the United States and Israel. And he
has succeeded. This is a dangerous situation that has set back the hope
of peace in the Middle East and emboldened our mutual adversaries, especially
Iran….I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous
Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish
state of Israel. On this vital issue, the president has failed….In this
old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new
President will bring the chance to begin anew.
This position implies that a new
president could make dramatic progress in the peace process -- which is
certainly untrue.
Thus, there are shortcomings in
Romney’s position but it suggests—perhaps too subtly for most listeners-- that
as president he would be on the right track, backing anti-Islamists in Middle
East governments and oppositions against revolutionary Islamist, anti-American
forces.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
No comments:
Post a Comment