Skip to comments.Some points Romney must make in his foreign policy debate
Posted on 10/22/2012 12:45:31 AM PDT by pdxkris
This is my first post here. Im not sure of all the formalities of posting in this forum. But below is my opinion on what Romney must accomplish tomorrow:
I think there are a few things Romney must make clear in his foreign policy debate tomorrow and also for the closing argument for the last 15 days of the campaign:
1. He must make it abundantly clear that he is not advocating another war with any country in the middle east or elsewhere, unless there is a direct national security thread in terms of the other side doing a blockade on the US in some way. There is absolutely no appetite for war in this country at this moment or in the near future. In particular the women will be completely put off by loose talk of war. So Romney must come outright and state this clearly without giving Obama the upperhand by allowing him to ask the question: Is the governor advocating war? If he wants a war he should say so. If Romney is forced to answer this question, he will lose points at the debate and Obama will appear stronger on this issue. So Romney must come out and make it clear that he considers war as the last resort action where there is a clear direct national security threat. He could say other things like he doesnt want to take it off the table in order to keep other countries guessing or something to that effect.
2. Romney must also point out that he is not advocating the indefinite stay of US forces in Afghanistan. This opens him up for the charge that he is lying on his fiscal plan/deficit reduction plan and that he cant just have the Afghan war continue for long and expect to pay for it without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. He should say that he doesnt want to give a timetable for our enemies in Taliban/Pakistan to wait it out and then take back Afghanistan and make it a base for terrorists again. Just like Ryan did. But, he needs to make clear that he doesnt want to perpetuate the Afghan war and burden our finances. And he must not open himself up for the liar/fudger charges on fiscal sanity/deficit reduction, by being unclear on what his plans for Afghanistan are.
3. And on Libya, he should take the high road and make it about Obamas Libya/middle east policy rather than getting into the specifics of he said, she said. He should clearly lay out what specifically is wrong with Obamas Libya, Middle east policies and what the consequences are. He should not under any circumstance leave any doubt that he supports the Arab spring overthrow of long standing dictators in those countries and the replacement of those dictators with democracies. This is an area where he has been vague and is absolutely vulnerable. Obama surely will corner him with this question: Does gov Romney think that we shouldnt have supported the spontaneous uprising in these countries and overthrow of longstanding dictators? If so he should tell the american people and the people in those countries, that he stands with the dictators. Romney must make it clear even if chaotic democracy in these countries isnt optimal for the US interests in the short term, he supports freedom and democracy everywhere. He should say that in the long term, as these democracies mature, through our diplomatic efforts, we should make sure they are on the side of the US. I know the party faithrul criticism of supporting Arab spring (with the exception of Bill Cristol, who consistently calls for democracy and freedom in other countries). But he really doesnt want to be caught on the side of Qaddafi or Mubarak, no matter how their replacements have worked for the short term interests of the US 4. He has articulated his Syria position well. But he needs to make clear he is not advocating that the US forces do the dirty work in Syria for the rebels. His current position of supporting rebels by providing them what they need in terms of equipment and training is a sound one. Once again he should steer clear of the lunacy on the part of some on the right wing of equivocating on letting Assad continue with his killing spree for fear of rebels. Romney really doesnt want to get caught on the side of a brutal dictator like Assad, by being vague on the stage, trying to accommodate that faction of the republican party.
5. On Osama, he should acknowledge only that the president made the right decision. But he needs to make clear that Alqaeda isnt going anywhere (give examples of their activity), although over the last 11 years US actions including from the previous admin, Qaedas strength and capacity have been greatly diminished. The other thing he should point out is that while many commentators thought after the 2001 war in Afghanistan, the Taliban were decimated. But that turned out to be completely wrong. They were simply hiding in Pakistan and were waiting for the opportunity to strike again. They were able to successfully recruit to fight the US. The same way, we shouldnt dismiss Al Qaeda and be cautious, in particular in Afghanistan, since Taliban will surely hold a significant chunk of Taliban in their hands, once the US leaves Afghan. After we leave Taliban will most likely entertain the Al Qaeda, with the false belief that US doesnt have the money or appetite for another war in Afghan.
6. On china, he should continue with his current policy prescription of making sure that we have leverage over their currency manipulation and we keep them honest. However he should avoid sounding the alarm bell of full scale trade war. Obama is sure to raise the question that a full scale trade war in the short term would cause pain for our companies selling stuff in China and cost jobs, while causing price increases for all sorts of commodity goods we import from China. On the other hand, this might not be easy for most folks to relate to, even at a high level. So if it plays well in swing states, Romney should sound strongly Anti-China even at the cost of sounding like he would declare trade war with China. So this one he should talk about, based on what his internal polling is indicating. Bottomline: He should indicate he would stand up to china, but without uttering two words: trade war
7. In his closing statement he needs to make clear he believes in peace through strength. But that doesnt mean he will declare more wars or take more military action unless absolutely needed for direct national security threats. He should also make it clear that he doesnt just want to pour more money into military blindly. He needs to make clear that he isnt suggesting more money for military = more security. Rather he wants to take resources from areas where we dont need resources (based on future threat assessment) and put them to work in areas where we expect the future threats to be. He should say he wants Smart and efficient use of money/resources to make a more agile and prepared military for the threats we expect in the next decades. Not just blind allocation of more funds to military and add to deficit without knowing how effective that addition is.
"When I am President, I will bow to NO foreign leader, neither figuratively nor literally"...and leave it at that.
Welcome aboard pdx!
You say ‘must’ a lot.
Welcome to FR.
I want the completion of the mission in THIS noble and just war . The war to once and for all crush all radical components in the entire cult of Islam . Whatever the costs , this great and perfidious evil will never go away on it’s own . It must be eradicated . In detail . My greatest regret is that I am too old to be allowed into this good fight . If the politicians can’t lead us towards this great goal then we should lose them and follow our warriors for a time . This is fight we can not lose . No clueless civilian politicians of either party have the right to cause all those that have been lost thus far to have been lost in vain . I expect Mitt to strap on his brass balls and leave a wrecked and ruined opponent on the field of the debate’s battle tomorrow night . This is the time , this is the hour . Forward to the foe . Fight !
Smells like a leftist plant -- trying to divide us with antiwar BS to me...
A long, left-leaning vanity as a first post?
I will be at work (fortunately) so I don’t really care what happens at the debate. Look the MSM is going to spin this as a win for O no matter what happens. The like obeisance and kow towing. Citizens are fed up and I am hoping on election day that they show up and let O know just how mad they really are.
Libya did not just become Obama’s on Sept 11th 2012.
Libya is Obama’s baby. He created a monster.
That’s not being a troll. That’s being realistic.
He needs to mention what Obama said to Putin about being more flexible after the election. Shows we can’t trust Obama to stick up for American interests. Tie it in with him cutting the defense shield for the eastern Euro countries to appease Russia.
Romney could throw in what Obama was caught saying about Netanyahu to the French president too.
He must mention the general who said our national debt is the biggest national security crisis we face.
Of course he needs to talk about the defense budget cuts. And that’s a good opportunity to drop in that Obama’s budgets were voted down unanimously twice. Obama’s priorities are not the same as Americans.
And in terms of Bin Laden, he needs to explain that Obama stopped enhanced interrogation, which is how we got the intel to track down Bin Laden in the first place.
Romney also needs to mention that we need energy independence again in order to not be under the thumb of the Arabs who can kill our economy by cutting oil production any time they want. And he can complain about Obama telling Latin America he’ll help them drill for oil so we can buy it while cutting our own production.
Good post. The one thing we have learned about Romney is that, despite many flaws on the kitchen table issues, he is sharp and will be prepared. Kind of refreshing after McCain/Bush/Dole/Bush not to be terrified going into one of these and knowing I can grab some popcorn and beer and the worst that will happen is Obama will battle to a tie. I was a Rick Perry supporter, but on days like this, I’m glad he didnt win or I might have to go on some kind of anxiety drugs!
Based on reports from Libya during the fighting, the U.S. supplied or facilitated weapons to members of AQ in Libya on the grounds that they were the “good” members of AQ. From what I have pieced together, our ambassador was heavily involved in that process. This started on Obama’s watch. He aided the forces that killed our ambassador. He owns it, regardless of the manner in which his press secretary and the press secretary’s staff (WaPo, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT, etc.) spin it.
IBTZ - I smeel leftist crap in this pile of manure.
The toughest thing to prepare for is a litany of lies. Who knows what successes Obama will claim to have accomplished.