Romney Should Not Discuss Foreign Policy If He Can Help It
There is absolutely nothing that unites these organizations in any programmatic manner except Romney’s ignorance, and the expansion of ignorance is insufficient to topple an American superpower. ~Spencer Ackerman
Via Patrick Appel
As Ackerman knows quite well, Romney’s ignorance on this point has not lessened since he was running for the nomination last time. This is what I said about Romney’s foreign policy views almost three years ago:
Suffice it to say that a man who rattles off the two major sects of Islam in a list with various other Islamic groups, none of which has anything to do with the other, is profoundly unfit to head the executive branch in time of war with jihadis or indeed at any time. Someone who can look at the sectarian warfare in Iraq (or, say, Lebanon) and talk about how ”they” have all “come together” against “us” is hopelessly confused about the international scene. Someone who cannot demonstrate even the most basic understanding of the fissures and divisions in the Islamic world and the different political organisations within that world should not even be a party to the debate, much less should he be considered a viable “top-tier” candidate for a major party’s nomination.
I don’t revisit all of this just to attack Romney for sport, as entertaining as this can be, but to emphasize the real dangers that come from such profound misunderstanding of America’s jihadist enemies, their relative strength and the rivalries that exist among jihadist groups. Adopting an approach that conflates discrete and significantly different groups into a single force that the U.S. is supposed to combat will blind us to the political realities of the Near East and South Asia. As I said in response to Romney’s conflation of groups three years ago:
Rather than exploiting the cleavages that exist between different kinds of Muslims and different groups of jihadis, as a savvy George Kennan-like foreign policy thinker might propose, the insane plan of leading Republican candidates and the party leadership is to keep reinforcing the image of a monolithic, unified “worldwide jihadist effort.” The net result of this thinking will be that America will have that many more implacable enemies to fight and we will have missed that many more opportunities to turn jihadi against jihadi and use natural Baathist hostility to the same to our advantage. Rather than playing on national and sectarian divisions and exploiting opposition between relatively secular Muslims and their religious counterparts, talk of a “worldwide jihadist effort” helps to push these groups into collaboration where none existed before.
Unfortunately, we cannot simply dismiss Romney’s errors in the last campaign as the temporary product of a candidate trying to position himself as a foreign policy hawk in the tail end of the Bush era. His errors have persisted and his arguments have not changed in the slightest. His analysis was laughable three years ago, and it is even more so today.
Ackerman also draws attention to Romney’s bizarre view on how to conduct U.S. diplomacy, which seems to boil down to having one diplomatic attache for each regional command around the world. Ackerman writes:
Such an individual would “encourage people and politicians to adopt and abide by the principles of liberal democracy,” something that “would be ideal if other allied nations created similar regional positions, and if we coordinated our efforts with theirs.” That’s it for diplomacy, and he doesn’t have an agenda for global development. Why the world will simply do what America says simply because America says it is something Romney never bothers to consider. High school students at model U.N. conferences have proposed less ludicrous ideas.
Then again, those high school students have probably given the subject more thought. That is what I find most inexplicable about Romney’s decision to spend any time at all trying to fill in gaps in his record on foreign policy that he and everyone else know are there. He seems to think that making enough of the conventional noises on the right issues will persuade doubters and fence-sitters that he really does know what he’s talking about. As a political matter, this is folly. Bush was and remained famously clueless and incurious on foreign policy, but during the 2000 campaign he did not waste time trying to match Gore on national security and foreign policy credentials. He covered his glaring weaknesses by playing to the strengths that he did have. Romney seems to be intent on doing the opposite.
Ackerman also notes that the war in Afghanistan receives no mention in the book. As Romney still cannot make up his mind whether Obama has handled Afghanistan well or poorly, it is no surprise that he has not yet figured out how to demonize Obama for doing something that was promised and which Romney would normally support.
P.S. Faithful Romneyite Kathryn-Jean Lopez says of Romney’s book tour: “If you had any doubts about who he is, you’re seeing the real thing now.” Yes, yes, we are.
11 Responses to “Romney Should Not Discuss Foreign Policy If He Can Help It”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Daniel: “Rather than exploiting the cleavages that exist between different kinds of Muslims and different groups of jihadis, as a savvy George Kennan-like foreign policy thinker might propose, the insane plan of leading Republican candidates and the party leadership is to keep reinforcing the image of a monolithic, unified “worldwide jihadist effort.” The net result of this thinking will be that America will have that many more implacable enemies to fight and we will have missed that many more opportunities to turn jihadi against jihadi and use natural Baathist hostility to the same to our advantage. Rather than playing on national and sectarian divisions and exploiting opposition between relatively secular Muslims and their religious counterparts, talk of a “worldwide jihadist effort” helps to push these groups into collaboration where none existed before.”
For most Republican politicians, this is a feature, not a bug. Remember, unending war is one of the few things that they can offer.
I enjoy detailed, specific discussion of foreign policy, but I don’t expect a presidential candidate like Romney, Obama or Palin to excel at it. Once you demand wonk-mastery of foreign policy, or budgeting, or Robert’s Rules of Order, from candidates it forces them to cram so they can pantomime expertise that is not necessary to the job, which just wastes every one’s time. Most of us voters don’t know those things well enough to judge anyway; we vote for a person to represent us and trust they will hire the right advisers.
I prefer when candidates focus on articulating their general operating principles– e.g., America has been a force for good/bad, people should be responsible for themselves/for each other via government oversight. (Obviously, you have to read in between the lines.)
If more than one candidate holds the principles I treasure (or a lot of them), then I ask which will defend them better and more forcefully. This involves an intuitive feel for their personality.
Its like picking a plumber or lawyer, you get a feel for whether a candidate is generally smart, put-together and responsible.
I don’t expect him to excel at it, and if it were just remarks he made in an interview I suppose I could cut him some slack when he gives underwhelming or flawed answers. However, when one of the candidates writes a book that is apparently very wonky and detailed on some subjects and then almost flippantly silly on others I think it is more than fair to focus on the silly parts.
“I prefer when candidates focus on articulating their general operating principles– e.g., America has been a force for good/bad, people should be responsible for themselves/for each other via government oversight. (Obviously, you have to read in between the lines.)”
Uh, didn’t we just live through an 8 year experiment which demonstrated that’s crappy way of picking a candidate? You don’t have to be the world’s foremost authority on everything to be President, but if you can’t speak with a basic level of knowledge and understanding major issues of foreign and domestic policy…you’re probably not intellectually or tempermentally suited for the Presidency.
MIke
Daniel- Thanks for your reply. No doubt Romney’s claiming more expertise that he has and its a mistake on his part that you nicely exposed in your post. He shouldn’t'a tried.
Mike: Few conservatives I knew thought Bush was a fiscal, negative liberty type conservative; the “Compassionate Conservative” platform tipped them off. But votes are exclusively made relative to the opponent and he was still the better candidate.
That K-Lo post is hilarious.
Who cares what Romney believes or thinks about foreign policy. The idea that any Republicans, let alone a Mormom Republicans will ever be in charge of foreign policy again is laughable.
Instead of wasting time writing about the irrelevant Republicans, why not write about what the Democrats are going about Jihadist. What is the Obama Administraiton policy and how does it differ from the Bush Administraiton. What are the long term policy objectives of the Democrats.
I guess Daniel is too worried about being the “good” conservative to ever write about the very relevant Democrats instead of the irrelevant Republicans.
“Few conservatives I knew thought Bush was a fiscal, negative liberty type conservative; the “Compassionate Conservative” platform tipped them off. But votes are exclusively made relative to the opponent and he was still the better candidate.”
Look, I don’t want to rant and rave about this but…BUSH WAS NOT THE BETTER CANDIDATE! UNLESS YOU’RE A FRICKIN’ NUTJOB WHO THINKS AL GORE WOULD’VE ROUNDED PEOPLE UP AND THROWN THEM INTO CONCENTRATION CAMPS, HE COULDN’T POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN A WORSE PRESIDENT THAN GEORGE W. BUSH!
Okay, I’ve calmed down. You may simply be explaining that at the time, Bush II looked like a better choice than Gore. That’s a reasonable contention. But it turned out to be horribly, terribly, awfuly wrong and I don’t think most of the people who were that wrong have really come to grips with it and reconsidered their decision-making process.
Mike
Anonymous:
“Mike: Few conservatives I knew thought Bush was a fiscal, negative liberty type conservative; the “Compassionate Conservative” platform tipped them off. But votes are exclusively made relative to the opponent and he was still the better candidate.”
Adding on here – Anonymous, you’re clearly wrong; Bush was only even a candidate due to his father.
Second, what Daniel is saying about Romney’s BS is only asking for wonkism in the sense that asking for somebody better than Bush is wonkism. Understanding divisions in other people is basic to politics, and was well understood at least back to Roman times (‘divisit et vincit’, please excuse my poor latin). If somebody doesn’t understand that, then he’s a fool, or faking not understanding. In Romney’s case, he’s been a successful businessman, and made governor, so he’s not a fool; he’s lying.
As I said in the first comment, to the right unending war is not a bug, it’s a feature.
Anonymous:
“Mike: Few conservatives I knew thought Bush was a fiscal, negative liberty type conservative; the “Compassionate Conservative” platform tipped them off. But votes are exclusively made relative to the opponent and he was still the better candidate.”
Adding on some more – when Bush turned into Fiscal F*ckhead Man, very few Republicans had a problem with it. When he turned into Unending War on the World Man, very few Republicans had a problem with it. When he turned into ‘We Haf Vayz uf Making You Talk’ Man, very few Republicans had a problem with it. When he turned into Nacht Und Nebel Man, very few Republicans had a problem with it. When he turned into Corruption Man, very few Republicans had a problem with it.
When he turned into I Can’t Even Run A Country Corruptly Man, very few Republicans had a problem with it.
When he turned into Oops I Crashed the Economy Man, very few Republicans had a problem with it.
In the end, the only quibble of most Republicans was that Bush became an electoral loser. When he was a winner, they backed him.
BarryD
Adding on some more…
Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. A disaster, a flop, Pantagruel unloading himself at the junior league cotillion. Could have been worse? my god, was what happened not bad enough to offset a hundred could have beens? To paraphrase Pyrrhrus, another 8 years like that will be the end of us. Now these republicans want to trot in their losers, their losers, my god their losers, to clean up the mess their winners made. Contrition, shame, exile, get with it man, there’s gelt and glory in them thar hills.