Romney: Innovative Foreign Policy, Kinda

Mitt Romney also wrote a 15 page piece in Foreign Affairs laying out his vision for America's Foreign Policy. He deals largely with the same issues that Barack Obama does, but his policy recommendations are more specific, better thought out, and sometimes, downright creative. A few of his justifications and explanations include a little fear mongering, but otherwise, his policy ideas are rock solid. Here's a blow by blow analysis (if you don't want to read the whole thing, the just read bullet point #7):



1) Obama and Romney both start out their essays by citing great leaders in the past. But while Obama emphasizes the ideological leadership they provided, Romney focuses on how they created new institutions to face the challenges of the Cold War. He cites the creation of the intelligence community, the forging of alliances like NATO, and the formation of agencies like the US Agency for International Development, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. This difference between the candidates is telling. Obama wants to provide intellectual and moral leadership in the fashion of JFK. Romney wants to create a new structure for us to face the challenges of the 21st century, much like Harry Truman did at the beginning of the Cold War.

2) Romney correctly states that walking away now from Iraq would "present grave risks to the United States and the world." Unfortunately he exaggerates some of these risks, trying to incite fear in his readers. He says that in the event of a US withdrawal, "Iran would seize the Shiite south, al Qaeda could dominate the Sunni west, and Kurdish nationalism could destabilize the border with Turkey." What he says about the Sunnis and Kurds is valid. I don't think anybody really thinks that Iran will "seize" the Shiite south. Iraqi Shiites hate the Iranians. Iranians are ethnically different from Iraqis, fought a godawful war with Iraq about 20 years ago (in which about 3 million people died), and don't even speak the same language as the Iraqis. I also think that Iran, as well as anybody with half a brain, has realized that occupying Iraq is a really bad idea. Will Iran exert influence in Iraq? You bet. Seize it? Only a fool would do something like that.

3) He gets into the meat of his arguments by describing how radical Islam is different from our challenges in the past. Here's his first insight: "Understandably, the nation tends to focus on Afghanistan and Iraq, where American men and women are dying. We think in terms of countries because countries were our enemies in the last century's great conflicts...Yet the jihad is much broader than any one nation, or even several nations." This lays the groundwork for his overall idea: that we're geared towards fighting nations, but today's threats are broader than nations, so we need to completely change the way we fight.

4) "It is common to the point of cliche to talk about how much the world has changed since 9/11. Our president led a dramatic response to the events of that day and has taken action to protect the US homeland. Yet if one looks at our tools of national power, what is surprising is not how much has changed since then but how little." You see where he's going: the TOOLS of national power need to changed dramatically.

5) He structures his recommendations around four pillars. His first one is an uncreative letdown, and not at all game-changing. He wants to increase defense spending and increase the size of the military. He also wants to strengthen the economy through "policies such as smaller government, lower taxes, better schools and health care, greater investment in technology, and the promotion of free trade, while maintaining the strength of America's families, values, and moral leadership." This isn't really an idea. This is just him trying to pander to the Republican base, painting himself as the traditional conservative candidate. About the only interesting point in all of that is that he is an advocate of free trade. But it's still hard to tell if he means any of it.

6) His second pillar isn't super interesting either, and has to do with making the US more energy independent. He wants America to use energy more efficiently, invest in renewable sources like ethanol, and drill in Alaska. It's a pretty standard Republican view. He also says he wants to "initiate a bold, far-reaching research initiative - an energy revolution - that will be our generation's equivalent of the Manhattan Project or the mission to the moon." But he's awfully vague on the scope or structure of this initiative.

7) His third pillar makes my spine tingle. I'm just going to quote him; commentary isn't really necessary. "We need to dramatically and fundamentally transform our civilian capabilities to promote peace, security, and freedom around the world. After World War II, America created capabilities and structures - such as the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Agency for International Development - to meet the challenges of a world that was radically different from that of the 1930s. In the Reagan era, the Goldwater-Nichols Act helped tear down bureaucratic boundaries that were undermining our military effectiveness, fostered unified efforts across military services, and established 'joint commands,' with an individual commander fully responsible for everything going on within his or her geographic region." He continues, "Today, there is no such unity among our international nonmilitary resources. There is no clear leadership and no clear line of authority....For instance, even as we face the need to strengthen the democratic underpinnings of a country such as Lebanon, our resources in education, health, banking, energy, commerce, law enforcement, and diplomacy are spread across separate bureaucracies...As a result, we have had to look on as Hezbollah has brought health care and schools to areas of Lebanon. And guess who the people followed when the conflict between Israel and Lebanon broke out last summer? Likewise, the popularity of Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank should be no surprise given that the group has provided Palestinians with the basic services that neither the international community nor the Palestinian government could deliver."
"The problem has been just as evident in Iraq....Even as we were taking casualties and spending over $7B a month on the war, US civilian authorities were fighting over which agency was going to pay their employees' $11 daily food allowance." Ok Mitt, so what do we do?
"Just as the military has divided the world into regional theatres for all of its branches, the work of our civilian agencies should be organized along common geographic boundaries. For every region, one civilian leader should have authority over and responsibility for all the relevant agencies and departments...These new leaders would be heavy hitters, with names that are recognized around the world. They should have independent objectives, budgets, and oversight. Their performance should be evaluated according to their success in promoting America's political, military, diplomatic, and economic interests in their respective regions...."
Wow. This would probably be the most dramatic government restructuring in the history of the country.
Think about what it means. Our civilian operations would no longer be grouped by function, but by region. That means that every single region would control their own development agencies, health agencies, diplomats, and maybe even their own spies. Let's zoom in and examine what this would mean for the State Department in particular:
There would no longer be a Secretary of State. Instead, diplomacy would be run by the civilian commander of each region, who I imagine would hold a cabinet level position. There would still be ambassadors, but they would report to their regional commander. Recruitment and training would still happen under one agency, much like everyone in the army goes through the same training.
Think about a scenario: say, a budding democracy movement in Lebanon. The Middle East Director could send diplomats to Damascus to tell the Syrians to get the fuck out of Lebanon, at the same time he could send diplomats to Israel to tell them "Do not attack Lebanon, or we will cut off aid to you," at the same time send humanitarian aid and economic aid to bolster the new Lebanese government, at the same time start setting up schools and hospitals in Lebanon to compete with Hezbollah's social services, and at the same time organize a regional conference with all Arab countries to discuss Lebanon's future. Powerful. That's the only word to describe that idea.
Hard to implement, but so powerful.

8) His fourth pillar involves strengthening our alliances and leveraging them to confront challenges like terrorism, genocide and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. He says, "If elected, one of my first acts as president would be to call for a summit of nations to address these issues...The objective of the summit would be to create a worldwide strategy to support moderate Muslims in their effort to defeat radical and violent Islam. I envision that the summit would lead to....a coalition of states that would assemble resources from developed nations and use them to support public schools (not Wahhabi madrasahs), microcredit and banking, the rule of law, human rights, basic health care, and free-market policies in modernizing Islamic states." In principle it's a good idea. It will be nearly impossible to come to a consensus, however. For starters, everyone tell the US, "To stop radicalizing Muslims, America has to stop supporting Israel." Romney does have some concrete ideas, however, arguing for freer trade with the Middle East, among other things. One interesting example he brings up is how the US has dismantled the Arab League's boycott of Israel through policies like the Qualified Industrial Zone program, which granted free-trade benefits to Egyptian products that incorporate materials from Israel.

Overall, Romney has a much deeper knowledge of foreign affairs than Obama does, and it shows. The problem with Romney is that he lies so often that it's hard to tell when he actually means what he says. In this case, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because there is very little pressure for him to say anything in particular, so there isn't any reason why he wouldn't just speak his mind.

On Foreign Policy, Obama Disappoints

In Foreign Affairs' July/Aug edition, out now, Barack Obama lays out his vision for America's foreign policy. It reads like typical Obama: bipartisan, inspirational, hopeful, and eloquently written. But peel away all the flowery language and grand ideals, and you're left with almost nothing. In Obama's 15 page piece, he fails to propose actual solutions to almost all of the problems he presents. Here's a blow by blow analysis of his piece:

1) He starts out strong, presenting as his thesis: "The security and well-being of each and every American depends on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders. The mission of the US is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity." It's a good thesis for the problems he highlights in the intro: global terrorism, rogue states, wmd, and "rising powers that could challenge the international foundation of liberal democracy" (*cough* china). As we've seen, the go-it-alone, us-versus-them mentality doesn't really work.

2) The first issue he addresses is the war in Iraq, and his naivety becomes apparent. He says that, "The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal...." In his mind, there is not yet enough 'pressure' on the Iraqi government to perform. By his logic, an increase in violence (the inevitable result of any troop withdrawal) will apply the necessary pressure, because current situation is not desperate enough.
His second point is that "we must launch a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative to help broker an end to the civil war in Iraq..." That would work if other countries like Iran and Syria were driving the civil war there, in which case we could tell them to stop. Unfortunately, Iran and Syria merely supply the weapons, the Iraqis supply the hatred. What can Iran or Syria offer us diplomatically that would end the civil war there? Nothing really. They couldn't even help us broker a deal there, as the Iraqis have no history of friendship with Syria, and even Shiite Iraqis resent the Iranians (it's an ethnic thing).
In all fairness, we can't really blame Obama, because his Iraq stance is lifted straight out of the Baker-Hamilton report, which was written by some very smart, not-naive people. What most people don't realize, however, is that the authors of that report never actually believed their recommendations would lead to an improvement in the situation. Baker and Hamilton, being the smart people that they are, had already come to the conclusion that Iraq was a lost cause. They took it upon themselves to use their report to provide for the President a face-saving disengagement strategy. The report was filled with catchphrases and quick-to-grasp ideas that everybody but the President latched onto; ideas that basically add up to "the Iraqis are being spoiled. We need to practice tough love by withdrawing." All Bush needed to do to withdraw honorably was cite the 'experts' of the Iraq Study Group, and pull out.

Interestingly enough, a major reason why a "lasting political solution" has not yet materialized is because the Shiites gave up on peace even earlier than Baker-Hamilton. The Shiite controlled government has at every turn avoided working with Sunnis, knowing that eventually the US will withdraw, and they would then run the whole show. Just last week, the Iraqi president Nouri al-Maliki (a Shiite) said that US forces were "free to leave anytime" and that the Iraqi security forces were capable of stepping up. That's an obvious lie. The only reason he would say something like that is because he wants US troops to withdraw so that he can have free reign to crush the Sunni insurgency Shiite style.

3) Obama writes, "We must strive to secure a lasting settlement of the conflict (Israel vs Palestine)." This isn't an idea. Everybody wants a settlement. How is Obama planning to do this? Even he has no idea.

4) He proposes dealing with Iran by toughening sanctions. That's the oldest cop-out in the book.

5) "Expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines." That's fine, but then he continues, "Bolstering these forces is about more than meeting quotas. We must recruit the very best..." The problem with expanding the size of the armed forces is that we are forced to accept soldiers of lower quality- people we used to turn away. How does he plan to recruit more soldiers without lowering standards? He doesn't say.

6) "When we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others." Well, it's a no-brainer that we should "make every effort," but what if the world remains ambivalent? He doesn't say what he would do. Interestingly, he hints that he would be amenable to using US forces to "confront mass atrocities" like those in Darfur. It's a nice idea, but is a pretty liberal use of America's armed forces. Has he considered how long we would stay there? How would be make sure the genocide didn't start up again after we left? The Sudanese government doesn't want us there, will we take over and occupy Sudan?

7) To secure nuclear warheads floating around, he suggests that he will "work with other nations," especially Russia, where we still "must not shy away from pushing for more democracy and accountability." Saying that we will "work with other nations" does not qualify as an idea. What will be offer them? How will we work with them? And what will we offer Russia for her cooperation, if we are still bugging them to allow greater democracy? Obama doesn't say.

8) He wants to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Fine, good idea.

9) Obama very lucidly describes the danger posed by the proliferation of nuclear technology and material, but suggests only measures to monitor foreign weapons programs, and does not suggest any ways to enforce international nuclear proliferation agreements. But the problem has always been with enforcement, so on this point, he offers no real solutions.

10) He wants to increase the number of US forces in Afghanistan, and to use "sustained diplomacy to isolate the Taliban." Increasing the number of US forces in Afghanistan is a dangerous proposition, especially as the Afghans will be pretty tired of the US presence by 2009, and as expertise and manpower from the Iraqi insurgency heads over into Afghanistan. Personally, I think we absolutely need to send more troops to Afghanistan, I just don't believe he realizes what he'd be getting himself into. As for his diplomatic push, the Taliban is as isolated diplomatically as any group can get. Diplomacy is not a solution in this case. That he proposed it as a solution shows his naivety.

11) To protect the homeland, he suggests that we reform and reorganize the intelligence community. He doesn't say how.

12) To combat Islamic extremism, he argues that America must "export opportunity - access to education and health care, trade and investment - and provide steady support for political reformers..." I agree with his idea that we need to "export opportunity." In fact, I think that's THE thing we need to do. But how do we improve education and healthcare, and increase trade and investment in the Muslim world? His proposal basically suggests that we throw money at the problem. Some more specifics on how he plans to do export opportunity, other than throw money at the problem, would be nice.

13) He goes on at length about why we need to rebuild global alliances (war on terror, stopping genocide, global warming...etc). It's true, we do. How does he plan on going about it? His only concrete suggestion is that we stop being condescending.

14) To combat global warming, he plans to enact a "cap and trade system" for carbon emissions. Good idea. Will he get it through Congress? He can always try...

15) He wants to build "just, secure, democratic societies" around the world. He plans to do this by "investing in building capable, democratic states...." This investment will come in the form of an extra $25B allocated to foreign aid by 2012. But what is $25B by 2012? It's too little to make a difference.

Overall, the few solutions he offers usually involve investing in developing countries overseas. What will we invest in? Will we wait for these governments to reform and become less corrupt? Will we encourage democracy, even if Islamic fundamentalists would win elections? (Egypt, Pakistan).

Obama gives no indication in his piece that he possesses any sophisticated understanding of how the world works, and how foreign policy is implemented. We already have one dolt in the White House, it would be a shame if he was followed immediately by another.

I talked about how Putin is a total baller a couple weeks ago. He just brought Russia its first Winter Olympics.