Foreign policy has suddenly leaped right into the heart of the presidential campaign, and it may just stay there until Nov. 6. Much to the Romney camp’s dismay, the election will not be solely a referendum on the economy. While that is still the primary concern of nearly every American, voters are now being asked which candidate can best defend us across a turbulent global landscape.
One reason for the new focus on international issues was the savage assault against our embassies in the Middle East two weeks ago. Searing images of the United States under attack shocked and infuriated Americans. Along with the increasingly tense standoff between Israel and Iran and the emergence of China as the favorite scapegoat of both candidates, the spotlight is back on our global agenda.
Comments
Nothing gets the right wing more excited than the prospect of military action, it seems, especially those that have never carried a gun or seen their friends die in action. George H.W. Bush prosecuted a war reluctantly, skillfully and with a limited goal; to get Iraq out of Kuwait. Especially in retrospect and in light of what followed a little over a decade later, it will be remembered as his finest hour. His second finest hour was when he rewrote his lips, did away with voodoo economics, negotiated in good faith with Democrats and came to a resolution of our chronic budget problems by agreeing to raise taxes. We can't fight everyone to get our way, writes Nicholas Burns. Quite a contrast to the view of the Frick and Frack of foreign policy, Messrs Romney and Netanyahu. To be fair, Mr. Netanyahu might have chosen to avoid military service by studying in a yeshiva but instead chose honorable service in the IDF. Mr. Romney did his "service" as a missionary in France...an improvement over Dick Cheney who simply had other priorities. But they find common ground with their tough stance vis a vis Iran. It is a tough stance fraught with danger, recklessly so. We can't fight everyone to get our way. From what I've read, there is a consensus that without an all out war and invasion of Iran, we can do no more than delay by a few years Iran's development of nuclear capabilities. To stop them by military means rather than delay them requires a ground war. The option we are pursuing right now is to make an Iranian decision to go forward so expensive economically and politically that some other resolution will be found. This is the role of diplomacy. The last thing that would be in our interest would be to engage in a chosen war in the Middle East. There have been many in history who have thought that they could reshape the future by military means alone. If there have been "successes" they have been short-lived. We can't rely on George H.W. Bush anymore. He seems to have failed to curb his son in the Middle East. We can't rely on Mitt Romney. Unlike his father, George Romney, Mitt has no principles. We are living in dangerous times and would do well to remember Nicholas Burn's words...We can't fight everyone to get our way.
This comment has been removed.