Where’s Romney? Trade, Especially With China Posted by Jacob Stokes

Welcome to the second installment of DA’s exploration of where Mitt Romney stands on the foreign policy issues of the day. With Senate passage earlier this week of a bill to pressure China to appreciate its currency and the three long-awaited free trade agreements passing last night, trade is the issue d’jour. 

Romney has taken notice and begun calling out Chinese trade and currency practices and promising to do something about them “on day one,” if he is elected. Matt Yglesias has a good roundup of Romney’s proposals here. Those proposals focus mostly on the currency issue, which is just one part of U.S. trade disputes with China. Romney also has a video out today bashing President Obama for his supposed lack of action on protecting intellectual property from Chinese counterfeiters, and he’s giving a speech this afternoon in Redmond, Washington, home of Microsoft, presumably on that subject. 

So, according to Romney’s statements, he’s in favor or pressuring China on trade. When opportunities to do so have come up in practice though, his record says the opposite. According to the Club for Growth, a group which has as much stake as anyone in assuring a Romney victory: “In his recent book, Romney also voiced his opposition to President Bush’s steel tariff decision and President Obama’s decision to impose tariffs on foreign tires.” Bush 43’s steel tariff decision affected a number of countries, but was mainly aimed at China. Obama’s tire tariffs called out China directly.

In addition, as AFP’s Oliver Knox notes here and here, Romney today announced Carlos Gutierrez, who was Bush's Secretary of Commerce from 2005 to 2009, as part of his trade advisory team. But as Knox notes: “as commerce secretary, Gutierrez lobbied against a far weaker version of the China currency bill Romney now supports.”

As for intellectual property, Romney brings up an important issue. The Obama administration has frequently confronted Chinese officials in bilateral and multilateral fora, calling for greater protection. But as CFR’s Adam Segal points out, enforcement is and would be tough for any president.

Two questions flow from this: If Romney claims to back action against unfair Chinese trade and currency practices, why hasn’t that support shown in the form of endorsing concrete measures taken by members of both parties against such practices. Also, why don't his advisors back his stated positions? Secondly, on the specific issue of intellectual property protection, what direct action does Romney propose taking against China to stop theft?

Hey Republican Candidates, How About Some Foreign Policy Substance? Posted by David Shorr

As I weighed how to respond to the emerging GOP foreign policy campaign themes and Mitt Romney's big speech, I was torn between my partisan self and my bipartisan self. In the end, I thought both should have a chance to comment. The high-minded bipartisan on my one shoulder will constructively lay out some issues about which next year's two nominees could constructively contend. And then the snarky partisan on the other shoulder will swiftly and snarkily demolish the superficial nonsense on offer from the Republicans until they come up with better. [Note: I give somewhat of a pass to Jon Huntsman's big speech, giving it points for some solid themes, delving instead of skimming some issues, offering bona fide substance on one or two -- though lapsing into the same trite platitudes on others.] First, a few topics that could actually draw some substantive light and not just rancorous heat. 

Arab "Spring" and Values-Based Policy Our Republican friends are having a grand old time slamming the supposed fecklessness of Obama foreign policy. "Responding to events instead of leading, blah, blah, blah." Here's the proposition for a real debate: the administration has deliberately used a case-by-case approach and taken pains not to get too far ahead of events in ways and with consequences it would later regret; so what's the alternative and how would it lead to better outcomes?  Can you give us a set of policy guidelines or rules that deal squarely with all of the situations -- from Egypt to Libya to Bahrain to Syria? If you lean to the side of stability, could your administration have kept Mubarak in power, and at what cost to American credibility and moral authority (asks our old friend Shadi Hamid)? And if you're more of a principled democracy spreader, how will you keep debates about these situations from being steadily cranked up by our own Eric Martin's brilliant (and patented) Regime Change Ratchet?  Or maybe you believe in regime changing all over the place.

Libya and Humanitarian Intervention Speaking of regime change, I notice that some of you have been fulminating about using military force only in cases of clear national interest. Sometimes this has been wrapped together with some strange notion about "liberals only using force on behalf of one-world international community interest, instead of the national interest, blah, blah, blah."  To which I can only respond: Osama bin Laden.  (Oops, I'm getting snarky here in what's supposed to be the high-minded part.)   Now where was I... Humanitarian intervention, right. An honest critique of the Libya intervention would have to coldly and forthrightly argue against intervening to save lives when we can. And where would this leave the post-Holocaust idea of "never again?"  Oh, and it's a cheat to argue that intervention in one place such as Libya implies an obligation to intervene in a lot of other places -- a cheat or a rather truncated debate. If the critique is that it took too long to go in, I'd respond that it was a damn sight faster than most any other such case you can name.

Afghanistan and Nation Building (In which I tread carefully on turf whether other DAers like Michael Cohen and Jacob Stokes are much more expert.) This is one of the issues on which Gov. Huntsman scores pretty high on the substance-o-meter -- making a clear delineation between counterinsurgency and counterterror and arguing for pulling out sooner rather than later. My substance challenge is for Republicans on the "later" side of that question. What differences do you see between considering America's military engagement in Afghanistan in, say, Years 1 or 2 versus Year 11? At this point, can't we find a way out; isn't it only reasonable after so many years? Also, I've always wanted to ask about this talking point of "when we tell the enemy the time of our withdrawal, all they have to do is wait us out, yadda, yadda, yadda."  Um, can't they wait us out regardless; after all, isn't it their country?  

And here's an interesting related note from my recent visit to Israel, a link between the war in Afghanistan and America's military support for Israel. In our briefings about security assistance from the US, there was one small category of items (unspecified) that the Israeli's have asked for and been declined: stuff that the US military needs in theater. I just thought that was a fascinating snapshot of overstretch.

Phew, all that constructive reaching across the aisle took a lot of restraint. But putting snark and irony aside for a moment, I truly had hoped we'd be having a more mature and less rancorous debate -- that the experience of Iraq and Cheneyism had been chastening for Republicans. If anyone were to look back at the Bridging the Foreign Policy Divide book from 2007, you'd see what I mean.  Meanwhile, Michael captures the main point at the end of his excellent Foreign Policy piece (read the whole thing):

Rather than a robust national debate about the nature of U.S. power or American national security interests in an increasingly post-"war on terror" world, if Romney's remarks Friday are any indication, campaign 2012 is likely to focus on the issue it all too often does -- who's tougher.

Now it's my inner partisan's turn. He's going to parrot back how the opposition's critique of Obama foreign policy sounds to him. It's somewhat of a caricature, but not much. My inner bipartisan will keep waiting and wishing for more substance from the GOP, but until then, I'll probably keep offering variations on the following themes:

Obviously President Obama doesn't really believe in American narcissism exceptionalism, or he wouldn't be running around apologizing for America. Oh, don't pester me about actual times when he has apologized. You know what Obama's like, with all that apologetic-ness of his. Look, anyone who cares what other countries think is apologizing.

They try to make it seem complicated in the Harvard faculty lounges, but foreign policy is really quite simple. There are three kinds of people in this world: people doing things America doesn't like, people who should agree with America, and Americans. So all the president needs to do in foreign policy is to be more resolute, uncompromising, unwavering, resolute, and insistent. More like we really mean it. Winston Churchill was resolute and morally clear; Republicans are just like him.

President Obama is so apologetic -- with all his concern about America's international standing and moral authority -- that he thinks diplomacy is about pressure and persuasion when it's really about bluff and bluster. Of course America has moral authority; we're America, damn it. Obama isn't leading. If he were leading, then he'd be telling the rest of the world to get with the program, rather than worrying about whether they'll vote for the next round of UN sanctions on Iran or help clamp down with their own unilateral sanctions. As the great foreign policy expert Donald Trump says, it's time to tell OPEC that their fun is over.

And don't forget, it's really George W. Bush we have to thank for killing Osama bin Laden. 

Or do I exaggerate?

Photo credit: IowaPolitics.com

Ignoring the Foundations of Power Posted by Jacob Stokes

James Traub has an interesting piece in FP on how the conservatives running for president haven't thought much about foreign policy. The piece is worth reading, as it nicely pulls together many of the threads those who watch these issues have been observing for a while.

One particularly interesting piece is Traub's discussion of the realignment on foreign policy among different factions of the Party:

The dispute speaks to a striking realignment within the Republican Party's ranks. The Republican establishment has long been defined by non-ideological moderates and "realists" like Brent Scowcroft, Richard Armitage, and Richard Haass. These are the figures, associated more with the first than the second President Bush, whom Huntsman has been consulting and whose views he largely represents. And yet he, and they, are now considered beyond the pale. A new conservative elite has by now almost wholly supplanted the graybeards within the GOP's ranks, and has gravitated to Romney and Perry. The graybeards support the New START nuclear arms deal with Russia negotiated by Obama and ratified this year; the GOP candidates and most of their advisors do not. The old elite supports engagement with China; the new ones regard China as a military threat. In short, today's conservatives see the world as fundamentally more threatening than do the old-school pragmatists... In effect, then, the old center of the GOP has joined with the new radicals of the Tea Party in advocating a policy of Less.

To me, one important aspect of this split is how the new conservative elite essentially writes off the connection between economic strength and national security. That connection has quickly become so clear and generally accepted that it's become a cliche. The new conservative elite pays lip service to this ideal, but then promptly advises a more expensive foreign policy, both in terms of hardware and in terms of tactics (extended COIN, for example). Anything less, in their mind, is "isolationism."

While one might -- and I would -- disagree with the Tea Party's and the traditional GOP's ideas about how to grow the economy, those two groups at least take seriously the connection between the two sectors of our national life.

Interagency Cooperation on Assassination Plot Investigation Posted by James Lamond

Everyone has by now heard the news about the attempted assassination plot on U.S. soil. There are many questions that do not have clear answers – including what was Iran thinking? But certainly towards the top of the list is why some in Congress are trying to do away with the very tools that disrupted this plot?

Juliette Kayyem, who before her role at Harvard was Assistant Secretary at DHS, writes today that: 

I have been in government long enough to say almost nothing about an unfolding case. I have a lot of confidence in Holder's team but unless or until you know the evidence, better to be quiet. But an irony that cannot be ignored is this: As our strongest law enforcement agency was using investigative techniques, the judicial system and good old fashion rule of law, Congress was at the same exact time considering controversial detainee provisions in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that would - yes, the irony is deep – remove civilian courts and law enforcement from most counterterrorism efforts.

As I wrote about last week, and NSN put out today, there are ongoing efforts in Congress that would essentially remove any civilian role in terrorism arrest, interrogation and prosecution. This includes agencies like the FBI and the DEA, who as we saw today are some of our best tools against terrorism. According to reports, the disruption of this plot appears to be the result of effective interagency, and international, cooperation at many different levels. The Department of Justice’s press release outlines th degree of cooperation: 

This investigation is being conducted by the FBI Houston Division and DEA Houston Division, with assistance from the FBI New York Joint Terrorism Task Force.  The prosecution is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Glen Kopp and Edward Kim, of the Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, with assistance from the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. The Office of International Affairs of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and the U.S. State Department provided substantial assistance.  We thank the government of Mexico for its close coordination and collaboration in this matter, and for its role in ensuring that the defendant was safely apprehended.

Where’s Romney? Afghanistan Edition Posted by Jacob Stokes

As Mitt Romney continues his journey to the front of the GOP field, I thought I’d start a little feature here at DA that looks at Romney’s position on different issues in depth. Today’s pick: Afghanistan. Dan Balz has a great first look at this issue over at the Post.

Romney’s central criticism of the president’s policy on Afghanistan is his failure to “listen to the generals” before making the call last July to withdraw the 33,000 “surge” troops by the end of 2012. (Let’s leave aside for a moment the fact that such criticism is misguided.) Romney suggested in his speech last week that, “I will order a full review of our transition to the Afghan military to secure that nation’s sovereignty from the tyranny of the Taliban. I will speak with our generals in the field and receive the best recommendation of our military commanders. The force level necessary to secure our gains and complete our mission successfully is a decision I will make free from politics.”

That quote suggests that Romney would ask the generals what they need and simply order what the generals say is needed. Such a criticism would, in his mind, be “free from politics.”

But as Balz points out, Romney has also suggested that troop commitments are ultimately the president’s decision. He said, “I would listen to the generals and receive the input of those who are the commanders in the field, and then I would make my own decision.” In other words, he’d do what Obama did.

In addition to the flip-flop here, Romney also has a couple other issues to contend with. Most of the news coverage assumes that Romney’s review would come to the conclusion that some level of troop drawdown was warranted. But if Romney ordered a review, it’s not out of the question that he’d get a request for increased resources to complete the mission. No military commander has ever asked for fewer resources to complete a mission. So the question should really be: Would Romney consider more troops to help achieve the mission in Afghanistan?

After all, the resources needed to complete the mission depend on how it’s defined. Romney, in his speech last week, seemed to define the mission as preventing the Taliban from gaining any political power in Afghanistan, a much more expansive mission than has been set out by the Obama administration, which has made a point of delineating between the Taliban and al Qaeda. He said, “After the United States and NATO have withdrawn all forces, will the Taliban find a path back to power? After over a decade of American sacrifice in treasure and blood, will the country sink back into the medieval terrors of fundamentalist rule and the mullahs again open a sanctuary for terrorists?”

In addition to the question of troop commitments, Romney has failed to address the much larger issue on Afghanistan: How to create a functioning government. Especially in light of the news today that the Afghan government has been engaged in systemic abuse and torture of prisoners, figuring out how to create a reliable partner government is arguably just as, if not more, important than achieving military victory over the Taliban.

At bottom, Romney wants all the political upside of this issue – Listen to the generals! Defeat our enemies! – without any of the political downside – more troops, more money, grim chances of success as he defines it. The voters deserve a chance to weigh the pros and cons of Romney’s position against President Obama’s. Will they get that chance?

Photo: IAVA Flickr

Some Thoughts After Hearing Huntsman and Romney Posted by Heather Hurlburt

First, kudos to my colleagues on that side of the aisle -- especially Team Huntsman -- for turning out substantive speeches that one can actually think and argue about.  such a nice change from the debates.  (Shhh, don't tell anyone I said so.)  However, I drew three over-arching conclusions and they aren't particularly cheery:

1.  There are no conservative ideas about foreign policy since Ronald Reagan that it is safe for conservative candidates to reference in public.  So you get "peace through strength" over and over.  How is "strength" different now from 1982?
2.  No one in American public life yet has an explanation to Americans of how what happens abroad affects our lives at home -- or could help us out of the slump we're in -- that they have confidence in.
3.  No one running for President thinks Americans vote on foreign policy.  These speeches are concocted to play to grander notions of strength that do seep down into the voting public, and then to niche audiences, whether those niche audiences are ethnic groups (Huntsman and Indian-Americans) , specific industries and regions (Romney and ship-building), wings of the party (the Iran war lobby) or editorial writers and national media looking for "seriousness."

All Children Above Average, National Security Edition Posted by Heather Hurlburt

From what I've seen of the speech Jon Huntsman is about to give, I expect attention to focus on his call for a faster pullout from Afghanistan than Obama's timetable, or Romney's, or the Senate neocons' (never), and maybe on the general awkwardness of someone who served in the Obama Administration overseas saying its policies have "weakened America."

But -- in a speech that overall represents what used to be the sensible center of Republican politics -- the sentences that ought to get the most attention are a call for military attacks on Iran if it gets nuclear weapons, and a call for US foreign policy to be "much more" focused on counter-terrorism.  Oh, and the idea that we should focus trade initiative on nations that share our values, which is a rather non-realist idea that I'll let my trade policy friends have a field day with.

The Iran attack call is interesting because, contrary to what you might think, the U.S. military and many nonpartisan and bipartisan national security figures think such an attack would be a disaster for our security, for our economy and for our ally Israel. A Stimson Center-USIP report found that an attack: 

would cement Iran's determination to acquire nuclear weapons, likely end the prospects for a democratic revival in Iran indefinitely, and result in significant military, political, and economic harm to the US and its allies.

Meanwhile, Huntsman says that we need to pay "much more" attention to counter-terrorism in our foreign policy.  I wonder what he means by this.  The 9/11 Commission and a number of CT scholars have written in recent months that the threat we face from terrorism remains substantial but not catastrophic.  Defense Secretary Panetta and others have said that Al Qaeda is under great stress.  And in fact, the UN just rolled out a new forum for counter-terrorism cooperation.  All this would seem to suggest more that we can right-size our focus on terrorism.  In my experience, whether you are a diplomat at the UN, in an Asian financial institution or a Latin American embassy, terrorism is in the top three items on your portfolio.  At a moment where we face such intense economic and institutional challenges around the world, I have literally never seen in the writings of any expert of any political stripe the idea that our diplomats need to do more CT work.

 

When You Say No-Fly-Zone and R2P, Do You Mean Regime Change? Posted by Eric Martin

Josh Rogin published a piece earlier this week with a headline that touted Sen. Joe Lieberman's recent call for a "no-fly-zone" over Syria. (For those familiar with the Regime Change Ratchet*, this would put Lieberman in Step 3).  While such a hawkish stance from Sen. Lieberman is hardly remarkable, what is interesting is that Sen. Lieberman, like the Syrian protesters cited in the piece, is actually calling for something far more involved than a mere no-fly-zone.

Following the precedent set with respect to the Libya intervention, the term "no-fly-zone" is becoming a euphemism for a more robust military engagement - one that includes troops on the ground, arming rebel factions and the use of air power to target a wide range of military and regime assets.

Such lexical imprecision is not harmless, however. It can forestall, or at least muddle, the necessary discussion of the increased costs, greater risks and potential responsibilities that arise in the aftermath, associated with the type of military engagement that is actually being proposed under the guise of a relatively simpler no-fly-zone.  Even if "no-fly-zone" makes for an easier sell to the public, as well as prospective coalition partners.

Consistent with this euphemistic trend, the "responsibility to protect" (R2P) doctrine is being invoked by proponents of military action in Syria when, in essence, most are calling for regime change - a policy that, again, exponentially raises the stakes in terms of costs, risks and difficulty in managing the aftermath.  

Along those lines, Shadi Hamid and Gregory Gause had a very interesting bloggingheads discussion (relevant excerpt here) of what Gause termed the "bait and switch" that was perpetrated in connection with the Libyan intervention - sold to various parties as an R2P mission whereas, in practice, it was regime change. Shadi's counterpoint was not without merit: that there was no feasible way to protect the civilian population of Libya absent regime change, since Qaddafi (if left in power) would eventually retaliate.

While Shadi is likely correct, the lesson is that we should look at every proposed R2P missions with that potential escalation front and center.  At the outset, we must determine whether there is a strong likelihood that we could protect the civilian population in question by a military action that falls short of regime change. If not, it is essential that we fully appreciate exactly how serious this proposed military involvement is, and what it could entail in terms of ongoing responsibilities (this is especially true given the horrendous track record for success in terms of such endeavors - but more on that in a future post).

(*Credit Matt Yglesias for the name)

Photo Credit: PhoenixFlyer2008

No Ideas: Evaluating Romney's Speech Posted by The Editors

This post by DA editor Jacob Stokes and DA contributors James Lamond and Kelsey Hartigan.

Today Mitt Romney gave a foreign policy address at the Citadel. It contained eight specific policy proposals. Like Romney’s previous speeches, this one doesn’t have the facts going for it. The address contained more in the way of nice-sounding rhetoric designed to enthuse his audience than it did in terms of serious policy proposals that can draw a contrast between him and President Obama. The lack of substance is disappointing because this is where Romney was supposed to get serious and lay out a platform. He released a list of his foreign policy advisors yesterday, most of whom were high-level players in the Bush administration, so it seemed like he’d be going for more.

Aaron David Miller characterized that disappointment best: “Our problems in foreign policy flow not from the lack of expertise and skill of the president but from the cruel and unforgiving world in which we operate abroad, and Mitt Romney can't fix that. He can, however, get America into a lot of trouble with tough talk, no strategy, and a failure to understand the world in which we live. We saw that movie in 2003. No sequels please."

Regardless, some of us here at DA have decided to take explore each of the policy proposals and then a couple other issues that came up. The proposals in bold. Happy reading: 

1. Restore America's Naval Credibility

Romney announced he wants to “increase the shipbuilding rate from 9 per year to 15.” What he didn’t say was why. There was no strategic rationale and certainly no mention of how he plans to pay for it. The Navy requested $176.4 billion dollars for the 2012 budget year – and already proposed building 10 ships. Why is Mitt Romney proposing we build more ships than the Navy has requested – and how does he intend to pay for it? See his plan for massively increasing the defense budget below. 

2. Strengthen and Repair Relationships with Steadfast Allies

Romney stated, “I will bolster and repair our alliances. Our friends should never fear that we will not stand by them in an hour of need. I will reaffirm as a vital national interest Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. I will count as dear our Special Relationship with the United Kingdom.  And I will begin talks with Mexico, to strengthen our cooperation on our shared problems of drugs and security.” This is of course a neoconservative favorite line of attack. It presumes that the U.S. has “abandoned” its allies. It is an attack usually seen in terms of Israel and Eastern Europe with regards to Russia. Though Romney has spread out the theme a bit. This the strawiest of straw men. In what way is the U.S. position on Israel’s existence as a Jewish state in question or the Special Relationship not counted as “dear.” In addition, U.S.-Mexican cooperation on security and drugs is already far past just “talks.”

Just as a reminder for readers, here is what Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said last month in the context of the rescue of the Israeli embassy personnel in Cairo:

“I would like to express my gratitude to the President of the United States, Barack Obama.    I asked for his help.  This was a decisive and fateful moment.  He said, ‘I will do everything I can.’  And so he did.  He used every considerable means and influence of the United States to help us.  We owe him a special measure of gratitude.  This attests to the strong alliance between Israel and the United States.  This alliance between Israel and the United States is especially important in these times of political storms and upheavals in the Middle East.”

3. Enhance Our Deterrent Against Iran

Romney charged, “I will enhance our deterrent against the Iranian regime by ordering the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces, one in the Eastern Mediterranean and one in the Persian Gulf region. I will begin discussions with Israel to increase the level of our military assistance and coordination. And I will again reiterate that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.”

Apparently Romney doesn’t believe that the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet provides sufficient deterrence. However, his overly-militaristic approach is not without consequence. Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mullen has explained that the U.S. should be focused on talking to Iran – and that military action will not solve the problem with Iran. Admiral Mullen noted:

“We haven’t had a connection with Iran since 1979. Even in the darkest days of our – of the Cold War we had links to the Soviet Union. We are not talking to Iran so we don’t understand each other. If something happens virtually – it’s virtually assured that we won’t get it right, that there will be miscalculations which would be extremely dangerous in that part of the world. So – and I think the Pacific and Asia, stability there as the – as one of the economic engines for the world for the foreseeable future, is something we all need to spend a lot of time on.” 

Admiral Mullen has also said: "I think Iran having a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. I think attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome… But from my perspective ... the last option is to strike right now."

Finally, the U.S. alliance with Israel is fundamental; security ties are closer than they have ever been. Since 2009, President Obama has met with Prime Minister Netanyahu more than any other world leader, and the U.S. and Israel held their largest-ever joint military exercise. Andrew Shapiro, Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs, also notes "an unprecedented increase in U.S. security assistance, stepped up security consultations, support for Israel's new Iron Dome Defensive System, and other initiatives." 

4. Commit to a Robust National Missile Defense System

Romney also said he would “begin reversing Obama-era cuts to national missile defense and prioritize the full deployment of a multilayered national ballistic missile defense system.” Not only was there no explanation as to how Romney would pay for this, but worse, experts agree that many of these programs aren’t worth funding until they start meeting certain testing requirements. The focus instead should be on programs that work In 2009, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mullen announced the administration’s new Phased Adaptive Approach, which will protect the US, our forward deployed troops and European allies through cooperation with Turkey, Poland and Romania- which have agreed to house certain components of the system. 

And as a report from the Center for a New American Security demonstrated this week, the focus on the European missile defense system is much more pragmatic than Romney’s plan to focus on national missile defense. CNAS recommends in each of its budget scenarios that the U.S. should: “Prioritize operational activities tied to theater missile defense programs, such as the Aegis sea-based system, and provide less funding for experimental national missile defense programs.”

5. Establish a Single Point of Responsibility for All Soft Power Resources in the Middle East

Romney pledged the creation of an Arab Spring Czar. He said, “I will begin organizing all of our diplomatic and assistance efforts in the greater Middle East under one official with the authority and accountability necessary to train all our soft power resources on ensuring that the Arab Spring does not fade into a long winter.” This is not necessarily a bad idea. What is surprising though is that for all of the talk about democracy, human rights and American interests in the speech, his position on one of the most complicated and important shifts in international affairs is a procedural one that creates more bureaucracy. It is also a bit puzzling politically to propose another new czar position, given the Tea Party’s early focus on President Obama’s czars in protests. This is not likely to go over well that portion of the Republican electorate. Either way, I wonder what Jeffrey Feltman, assistant secretary of state for near east affairs, thinks about this proposal. 

6. Launch Campaign for Economic Opportunity in Latin America

In the speech, Romney said, “I will launch a campaign to advance economic opportunity in Latin America, and contrast the benefits of democracy, free trade, and free enterprise against the material and moral bankruptcy of the Venezuelan and Cuban model.” Economic engagement and helping build strong democratic institutions in Latin America is a pretty good idea. And President Obama agrees. In March, following President Obama’s trip to south America, Julia Sweig, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, writes that, "On the tangible side, Obama and Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff announced ten new cooperation agreements--including deals on energy, science and technology, space, nuclear port security, and infrastructure development." The Miami Herald further reported at the time that: "Obama pledged $200 million to Central America to battle a new menace: drug cartels... He said the $200 million anti-crime package would ‘strengthen courts, civil society groups and institutions that uphold the rule of law' and address ‘the social and economic forces that drive young people towards criminality.’” 

7. Conduct a Full Review of Our Transition in Afghanistan

On Afghanistan, Romney mused whether, “In Afghanistan, after the United States and NATO have withdrawn all forces, will the Taliban find a path back to power? After over a decade of American sacrifice in treasure and blood, will the country sink back into the medieval terrors of fundamentalist rule and the mullahs again open a sanctuary for terrorists?” Romney also said, “I will order a full review of our transition to the Afghan military to secure that nation’s sovereignty from the tyranny of the Taliban.  I will speak with our generals in the field, and receive the best recommendation of our military commanders.  The force level necessary to secure our gains and complete our mission successfully is a decision I will make free from politics.” Two questions flow from those statements: First, is preventing a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan a vital national interest for the U.S.? If so, is Romney willing to add more troops to the fight and commit them for as long as it takes to prevent any political role for the Taliban in Afghanistan? Reporters should be badgering him for clarity on that point, especially as today is the tenth anniversary of the start of that war.

8. Order Interagency Initiative on Cybersecurity

This proposal is a promise to do what Obama has already done, and offered no changes to the policy. As former Clinton and Bush counterterrorism czar and cybersecurity guru Richard Clarke explained to DA, "We have a national cyber security strategy. He doesn't tell us what is wrong with that or what he would do, just that he would spend time devising yet another strategy." The current strategy is here.

Other Topics

Defense Budget

In order to finance these outsize ambitions, Romney has proposed pegging the defense budget to GDP at four percent (in previous speeches at least, although not in this one). Remember, this is just the base budget, which does not include additional spending on the wars (see expansion of Afghanistan above). What the four percent number would mean for the base budget, though, is roughly a 14% increase year-on-year, and then it would continue to grow from there. Here’s the math. Currently our GDP is $14.58 Trillion. Four percent of that would be something like $583 billion. The FY 2012 request is floating somewhere around $513 billion. So if Romney’s plan came was implemented, you’d see something like a 14 percent increase year-on-year in the base defense budget. To be sure, Obama’s supposed cuts aren’t really cuts. But the rate of increase is drastically slower than 14%. Also, good luck to Romney on selling that to the Tea Party caucus.

Richard Clarke also had a strong reaction on the issue of troop levels. He explained, "[Romney] also says we need to increase the size of the armed forces because of the burden of the combat rotation schedule. That was true three years ago. Since then Obama did increase the size of the armed forces and now, with far fewer US troops in combat, the military plans to reduce the size of the armed forces again as we are exiting Iraq. The only reason that the combat rotation would be a problem in the future would be if Romney is planning some new war." NSN came issued a similar conclusion in a paper earlier this week.

China

On China, Romney asked if the country will “go down a darker path, intimidating their neighbors, brushing aside an inferior American Navy in the Pacific, and building a global alliance of authoritarian states?” The Navy thing is laughable. China just finished its first aircraft carrier, and it’s “a piece of junk.” The U.S. has 11. As for the alliance of authoritarian states, Romney is surely referring to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Current members include: China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. It’s a fledgling regional alliance and has no hope of going global.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article misstated the context of a quote from Benjamin Netanyahu. As corrected above, the statement came in the aftermath of the rescue of Israeli embassy personnel in Cairo, not, as originally stated, in the context of the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN.

Photo: Mitt Romney Flickr

Mitt Romney: Nationally Insecure? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Which Mitt Romney will show up at the Citadel to give a ‘major foreign policy address’ tomorrow? Will we see Tea Party-pleasing Mitt who’s proposed getting out of Afghanistan and staying out of the international effort on Libya? War Party Mitt who supports unending war in Afghanistan, a new war in Iran and U.S. troops to Pakistan -- and who just named the Bush old guard to his national security team? Free-trader Mitt who opposes tariffs on China or Mitt who supports sanctions for Chinese currency manipulation? Or maybe crowd-pleasing Mitt who refused ‘to scold the audience’ for booing an active-duty servicemember deployed in Iraq? Best guess is he’ll go for all of the above—no apologies!—but you never know.

President Obama:  Keeping Promises Across The Globe

It will take some doing to challenge a president who has taken Bin Laden and more than two dozen wanted terrorist leaders off the battlefield, kept a pledge to begin winding down wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, shown firmness toward China, driven Moammar Qaddafi from power and rallied our allies together around sanctions for Iran and support to prevent global economic collapse.

Mitt Romney:  All Over The Map

From hand-to-hand combat in presidential debates over Afghanistan, to intra-party Congressional food fights on defense spending, the conservative movement is torn between its War Party and Tea Party factions. Meanwhile, on a litany of foreign policy issues --Afghanistan, China, Libya, terrorism, American allies and military-- Romney’s attempts to define himself as all things to all people have placed him on the wrong side of the experts – and often, his own previous statements.

Romney was against a drawdown of troops in Afghanistan before he was for it; he said he would not send troops to Pakistan, but then said he could imagine a scenario where it would be necessary; he said the President was wrong to join a coalition intervening in Libya, but then celebrated when Qaddafi was forced out; he said we shouldn't criticize our allies, then made disparaging remarks about Mexico and France; he said Presidents Bush and Obama were too tough on China’s steel and tire exporters, but then said the President wasn’t tough enough on China trade.

Be Prepared?

Romney says he was not prepared “to scold the audience” at a recent debate for booing an active-duty servicemember deployed in Iraq.  Last year he was unprepared to support our military leaders’ call for a treaty that would reduce Russia’s nuclear weapons.  Instead, he followed Congressional Republicans and opposed it, in what an independent journalist called a “shabby, misleading and thoroughly ignorant” attack. 

Team of Rivals?

The Bush national security hands that he’s named to his national security team are the same people who brought us the bungled aftermath of the Iraq invasion, the elections that brought Hamas to power in Gaza, and the decision to pull troops away from the hunt for Bin Laden and send them to Iraq instead.

The “shadow National Security Council” rolled out by the Romney campaign today includes advisers who think the Obama Administration’s planned transition away from combat operations in Afghanistan would be “a disaster,” and others who say that skepticism about any continued mission there simply “accounts for reality.”  He has advisers who think the U.S. tried to “run away from” Libya, and others who think we did too much.  What does Romney think?  

In domestic politics, flip-flops make your donors insecure. In foreign policy, they make us all less secure.