Romney on foreign policy

From WaPo:
I believe that if America does not lead, others will—others who do not share our interests and our values—and the world will grow darker, for our friends and for us.
A few more specific proposals, not that any foreign policy speech is ever very specific:
    Restore cuts to military spending; specifically, build 15 ships per year, including three submarines.
    "I will implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats.  And on this, there will be no flexibility with Vladimir Putin.  And I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark."
    Organize all assistance efforts in the greater Middle East under one official with responsibility and accountability to prioritize efforts and produce results, by stipulating conditions to aid.
    Reverse the President's four-year failure to sign any new free trade agreements.
    Support the many Syrians who would oppose Iran.
    More support for Israel.


Grim said...

I critiqued his last piece on the subject at BLACKFIVE. There remain some problems with this version, e.g., "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."

What if none of the opposition share our values? We could condition aid on their being prepared to enforce our values if they win; that would make us colonialists, but it is probably the right course. Or we could try to play the internationalist card, and respect their autonomy; that ends up giving aid and arms to groups that are as aligned with al Qaeda as they are with us.

I'd like to see a re-engagement of the Sunni tribes in Iraq, which would do a lot to repair both sets of problems (i.e., the Iraqi political problem occasioned by a Shia regime that is overweaning and endangering the peace, and the Syrian problem of having a movement that looks both to the West and al Qaeda). Our Sunni allies in Iraq deserve our support now, and furthermore they will be more persuasive messengers than we can be on the dangers of the Qaeda-type movements.

We seem to be doing a lot wrong right now; I'm not sure what's up, because I took Sec. Clinton for a fairly competent diplomat until lately. The Libyan adventure was fairly well handled at first, and until recently.

Grim said...

See also this Aussie view of the question.

RonF said...

The point that Romney makes is one related to a point I make at least once a month to one young man or another dressed in khaki and olive drab: "You are a leader. You are a leader whether you like it or not. The question is not whether you will lead. The question is *where* you will lead. That is the only decision you can make, as it is the only decision you have."

douglas said...

Ron, clearly our President was never a Boy Scout. It would have better prepared him than anything he learned in University, alas.