Romney and Libya
Mitt Romney has landed himself squarely in the middle of a complex, fast-moving foreign policy nightmare that is still unfolding: the explosion of anger in the Middle East over an anti-Muslim propaganda film made in the US.
Romney, in turn, faces a backlash over the timing and wording of his statement, and questions about whether the facts as we know them match his statement.
Let me say a couple of points of principle that shape my view of this debate: First, I don’t think it is the responsibility of a presidential challenger to remain silent in situations like this.
I think it’s absolutely appropriate for Romney to criticize the president and describe how he would handle a particular foreign policy challenge differently.
Whenever politicians or pundits insist that silence is the best policy — during a crisis, in particular — that is usually a shorthand for saying, “We don’t want to face tough, thorny questions.”
I also think it’s perfectly appropriate for Romney (and his conservative allies) to question whether the Obama administration has had a coherent policy toward the fast-evolving Middle East, as old dictatorships have toppled and street movements have shifted the balance of power.
What are our interests in the region? How will they be protected in this complicated new environment? What exactly is our relationship with Israel and where are the lines in the sand where that long-standing partnership is concerned?
I think Obama can be faulted fairly for failing to give a clear sense of his “doctrine” on these matters. And one way that Romney might distinguish himself is by offering a plan of his own.
Unfortunately, that isn’t what has happened, either before or after this latest crisis.
Romney’s campaign strategy has been to embrace the fiction that Obama has weakened America by “apologizing” to the world, and to the Middle East in particular, for our past policies.
This notion is deeply wound up in conservative fantasies about the president’s religious faith (he’s a ‘closeted Muslim’) or his hidden ideological tendencies (he is secretly using the US to wage a war against ‘Western colonialism’).
To claim that Obama “sympathizes” with the brutal murderers of American diplomatic officials, as Romney and the chairman of the Republican Party both did this week, means embracing those fantasies wholesale.
Pause for a moment to consider those statements.
Suggesting that America’s commander in chief is sympathetic — their word — to the actions of murderous thugs who just killed a top diplomatic official? It makes the birthers sound moderate and reasoned.
We know factually that the statement which Romney described as the latest example of the Obama administration “apologizing” for America was actually issued before any fatalities had occurred.
And this is only the latest juncture where right-wing make-believe about the president’s foreign policy clashes with factual reality.
We know that the Obama administration has pursued an incredibly aggressive war-fighting policy in Afghanistan.
He has pushed predator drone attacks into Pakistan, Yemen and other countries, and has largely decapitated the leadership of Al Quaeda — not only through the killing of Osama bin Laden.
He has presided over a period during which some of America’s longest-standing adversaries,from Libya to Syria, have been forced from power or cornered by insurrection. Many of those despots had been frequent supporters of Islamic terrorism against the US.
We also know that Obama is a practicing Christian, and we know that he has no record of cravenly apologizing for the US or trying to “downsize” the nation as punishment for our colonial past.
And we know that with the exception of one rogue Muslim soldier who opened fire on an American military base, the Obama administration has prevented further terror attacks on US soil.
Which doesn’t mean that Republicans should keep quiet, obviously.
If Mitt Romney has a fact-based critique of Obama’s handling of events in the Middle East, or the war on terror, he should speak up boldly. Even better would be to outline his own plan for advancing and protecting US interests in the Middle East.
This is indeed a perfect time to let Americans know what his foreign policy vision might be. Perhaps he wants Israel to attack Iran? Or does he want American boots on the ground in Syria? Should we work to restore American-friendly dictatorships, perhaps in Egypt or Yemen?
For the record, here’s what Romney does say about the Middle East on his website. He promises to appoint a single person in his administration to eventually come up with a plan for what to do about the Middle East.
“One official with responsibility and accountability will be able to set regional priorities, craft a unified regional strategic plan, and properly direct our soft power toward ensuring the Arab Spring realizes its promise,” Romney says.
Romney is careful to make the political point that he’s not creating a “Middle East czar” for the region, because the word “czar” is out of favor with conservatives. But he offers no actual concrete ideas for managing our ties to that turbulent region.
I share the view of some conservative pundits that this is the perfect time for Mitt Romney to force a debate over foreign policy and share his thinking about America’s role in the world.
Particularly given the GOP’s troubled record overseas during the Bush years, the likelihood that many Bush-era security officials would join Romney’s team, and his behavior during the current crisis, that conversation is long overdue.
Tags: election12
I generally agree with many of your points, Brian. But as to the criticism that President Obama hasn’t come out with a coherent policy on the situation in the region, I believe your later characterizations as “fast-changing” and “turbulent” explain why it would be difficult – or even unwise to attempt to overlay a single policy there. I believe the President’s naming of the late ambassador to Libya was a clear signal, and was welcomed by most of the Libyan people; and as to the volatile situations in Yemen, and the slowly calming but still shaky Egypt, our country has been well represented to the extent it is able, but we’ve got to accept a lower profile until the people of these countries don’t feel we’re trying to use them as pawns or worse.
In my opinion, the best we can do for the foreseeable future will be to remain engaged, but try not to push our noses into places we’re not welcome. As long as we’re a world power, there will be groups sniping at us – verbally and with weapons – to bait the tiger, so to speak. The challenge will be to react/respond appropriately – without creating even more enemies of our power.
It seems to me that the presidents response was totally reasonable. His remarks yesterday seemed appropriate.
It certainly isn’t a soft response to deploy to naval warships to the area. We might need that since it seems like this is spreading like wildfire today.
This area is and probably always will be a powder keg. Oil is all that they have that will be gone eventually or hopefully irrelevant. Once that happens then even the folks that are in charge (as their only income stream runs out) will be out of luck.
If I were someone from the middle east the biggest problem that I might have with the administration is not about a video but that energy policy is designed to eventually make everyone in the region poor. Not directly but that would be the consequence of stopping our dependance on oil from the region. The place is a house of cards.
The more I see of Romney, especially when he’s under pressure, more I appreciate the relative classiness of George W. Bush. Relative to Romney, that is.
Too young to care at the time, but how did Regan deal with commenting on Carter’s handling of the Iranian hostage crisis during that election?
I am sure they have good advisers on this but here is a quote from Hillary Clinton from the Washington Post this morning:
“The U.S. government has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and messages,” Clinton said. “But there is no justification — none at all — for responding to this video with violence.”
It seems to me that the best way for the government to distance us from the video is to do just that distance ourselves.
Why even mention it?
I don’t understand Romney’s logic of criticizing a statement that came from an ambassador looking out the window of besieged embassy and seeing a violent mob. I bet he would have reacted differently if he would have waited 24 hours. Unfortunately, as president he won’t have the 24 hours to make better decisions. This convinced me that he’s not ready to be commander-in-chief.
My comment above “spreading like wildfire” may be a classic case of overreaction. I read several stories in the Post and at the NYT that gave me that impression. When I look more closely the scope of the demonstrations it doesn’t look very significant. Looks like possibly there is some sensationalism going on here. Big surprise.
Steve, I agree. But Secretary Clinton is not in that predicament today. But her focus also seems to be partially, if not primarily, on condemning the video.
Headline from the Post:
“Clinton condemns anti-Islam film as protests, violence spreads to Yemen”
Perhaps we are not quite as free as we think we are. This also from the Post:
“WASHINGTON — Federal authorities have identified a southern California man once convicted of financial crimes as the key figure behind the anti-Muslim film that ignited mob violence against U.S. embassies across the Mideast, a U.S. law enforcement official said Thursday.
Attorney General Eric Holder said that Justice Department officials had opened a criminal investigation into the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other diplomats killed during an attack on the American mission in Benghazi. It was not immediately clear whether authorities were focusing on the California filmmaker as part of that probe.”
That is nuts and very dangerous I hope its not true. But the fact that “Federal authorities” found and identified this guy is very scary.
If Romney wants to talk about something THAT is what he should be talking about. In this country we have the RIGHT to mock Allah and Mohammad and Jesus etc without investigation by law enforcement.
If Holder is involved it would validate some of the criticism, we have NOTHING to apologize about as a country in this particular case, certainly we don’t have anything to be investigating on our end.
So if Christians rioted and killed people I wonder if the Justice Department would investigate people who mocked Christ?
“Romney, in turn, faces a backlash over the timing and wording of his statement”
Been there, bought the t-shirt. We heard the collusion of reporters before the press briefing agreeing to stick to one line of questioning to make Romney look bad. Guess you got the fax, but didn’t hear that it already exposed.
“I think Obama can be faulted fairly for failing to give a clear sense of his “doctrine” on these matters.”
Oh yes. Obama declared that Egypt is “not an ally”.
Obama skips half of his intelligent briefings. Obama leaves in the midst of a crisis to campaign in Vegas.
We know all about Obama.
Mervel to be fair they did report that it wasn’t clear if the filmmaker was any part of the investigation but they are probing?
I do think that saying “they are not an enemy but not an ally” is kooky. Be clear about what we think they are. Romney should do the same. Egypt is influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood who said clearly that they support these actions by the protesters. Where do we stand in light of that?
Given that a clear stance is warranted.
The problem with the “Egypt not an ally” remark is that Egypt was an always in the “ally” category until Obama, Hillary, et. al. thought the Muslim Brotherhood was a better choice.
Obama speaks the truth when he says they are not an ally.
He made it so!
“Clear out” is the clear stance I would like to see. I know that Reagan took heat for getting out of Lebanon, but you know what it worked.
Let these guys solve their own problems and sit in their own mess.
Is Egypt still officially designated as a major non-NATO ally by the US?
Brian,
What a masterpiece of disingenuous insinuation! You hit every phony Obama talking point and even managed to work in the by now obligatory reference to Bush, without which it seems Obama supporters would have practically nothing to talk about.
The Obama administration has no relationship with Israel and no obvious policy towards the Middle East. That they continue to apologize in one way or another for that idiotic video shows that they do not see what is going on: our enemies have chosen this moment to attack us in hopes of upsetting the presidential election, using the video as a provocation. They sense weakness and indecision the way sharks sense blood, and react the same way.
Larry I am just not sure it is that straight forward. I mean we proved in the last 13 years of war, that we are not afraid to fight and shed blood.
These are large countries, we can’t judge them based on a mob of what looks to be a couple of hundred maybe a thousand people, just like they can’t judge us based on the crazy video’s and random things our population says and does.
That being said, I don’t know the advantage of sitting around being a target in a place that we may not be welcome?
The title of the blog says it all, “Romney and Libya”.
Make it about Romney.
How about asking Obama, “what were you thinking by having your State Department issue an all-clear to embassies just before 9-11?”
It’s full-scale circle-the-wagons by the media, and NCPR is part of the round-up.
“That being said, I don’t know the advantage of sitting around being a target in a place that we may not be welcome?”
I wish that I could agree with this. But the oceans no longer offer us any protection militarily or economically. If you don’t try and work with these countries the whole house of cards will collapse. That will mean terrible things for the US. Afraid that is just how it is. If they had stability then leaving would be an option. But in that case we wouldn’t have any diplomatic problems and we would not have to leave either. They are not storming the embassies in countries like Canada and Germany are they?
Mervel,
Don’t kid yourself for a minute about the common cause of Middle Eastern governments and mobs alike. The Middle East situation, although sometimes obscure, is based on one immutable precept: jews and crusaders (aka westerners) out. If not for strategic considerations (largely irrelevant now) and oil (still relevant, for now) I think we would be content to let them have their wish. That said, we will continue to be a presence, however unwelcome, in the region.
A little humor. Remember that Saturday Night Live where the characters in turbans were on a tour of the White House and they described themselves in a Middle Eastern accent: “We are students BUT we are not from Libya!!”
And remember the Libyan terrorists that they stole the plutonium from in Back to the Future?
Work with these countries? Really? We worked with Afghanistan against the Soviets and for payback we got the Taliban. We count the Pakistanis as “allies” and for that, they shelter bin Laden and al Qaeda. We saved Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein and for that did we get cheap oil? Nope. Instead, 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. We have seen Libyan gratitude for our help and support during the “Arab Spring.” Even our friends over there hate us.
Larry, JDM –
I think my piece asked the right critical questions of the Obama administration. It certainly wasn’t a blank check for his handling of this situation or the larger situation in the Middle East. On the contrary: What I’m saying is, Go for it. Challenge the president and his team. Offer your better ideas.
But you can’t do it with make-believe. You can’t repeat the notion that th president apologized over and over, when he simply factually didn’t. You can’t throw out nutty stuff like suggesting that the commander in chief of the United States “sypathized” with a murderous mob killing US officials.
And you can’t just double down by suggesting that people who want, you know, ideas and policies and reasoned arguments are in some kind of conspiracy to defend Obama. Let me say it again: Go after the guy. Offer your better ideas. Tell us how you would do it.
But you have to base your arguments on something real and factual, not fantasies about an Obama who simply does not exist.
–Brian, NCPR
Larry, that is all true but abandon all diplomacy and you get worse, guaranteed.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer!
To those who say any president should not apologize for something done by a couple stupid Americans to offend some religion or country, causes me to ask the following.
Does this mean you would never apologize for some dumb, stupid thing one of your dumb, stupid kids did to slander a neighbor?
If so, remind me never to live next door to you.
Paul,
I agree completely but I sense that this will not be Obama’s way. It certainly hasn’t been so far.
Brian,
Like I said I think the president to date has manged the issues appropriately.
But to examine it from the Romney take, using the word “apology” may have been the main mistake.
You could make a case, supported by Clinton’s comments today, that the administration is clearly focusing on a tactic where they “condemn” the film and then “condemn” the violence. Or at least always doing both.
From the US perspective the film is meaningless as far as justification for the actions that it has prompted. Perhaps that should be the clear message. It will not make the protesters happy but that is the truth. To make the message clear keep it concise and tell them what we are not going to tolerate.
In the rare case where one of my kids hits the other, I try and say is “it is not alright to hit your brother”! What I try not to do is make the mistake of saying “why did you hit your brother”? It doesn’t matter, he shouldn’t do it! I make the mistake also, but they should not be making this mistake two days after the fact.
Larry, then why don’t you think that we should not work with these countries? Isn’t that the point of your comment?
Mervel wants to completely “clear out”.
These ideas sound easy but they are totally unrealistic.
Brian,
You can’t continue to link Romney with lunatic fringe ideas and still be thought of as objective. Liberals and Obama supporters would be outraged if conservatives insinuated that Obama was behind the “magic underwear” jokes or some other equally ridiculous bit of propaganda. And in case you didn’t notice, George Bush is no longer President, has been out of office for four years, isn’t running for office and hasn’t had an active role in the campaign, at least not on behalf of the Republicans.
It’s the manner of the work that I’m commenting on. We should lead from an unapologetic position of strength. It’s time our Middle Eastern “friends” understood realpolitik.
Larry –
What you’re saying works perfectly as the opinion of a conservative posting on a blog. This kind of thing works perfectly for conservative pundits. It’s absolutely fine to say as a statement of principle: “We should be strong, not weak. We should show those so-and-so’s that we can’t be messed with.”
But Mitt Romney is in a different position. He’s the guy who’s actually going to be dealing with pulling triggers and launching missiles and sending American soldiers into harm’s way, if elected. He needs to articulate actual policies and strategies.
We know what Obama has done to project strength. His administration has killed A LOT of people, and bombed a lot of targets, and put a lot of people in prison, and broken up several dangerous terror plots.
So now Romney has to say specifically what part Obama got wrong, what he would do differently, and what (specifically) that would mean. Some conservatives want war with Iran. Is that a good idea in his mind? Some conservatives think the Arab Spring was a bad idea.
Romney’s own policy statement doesn’t say that — it actually praises the Arab spring. So what would he do differently, to support American interests in that changing part of the world. So far he doesn’t say.
Again, the bottom line is simple. You and I can say, “Let’s look stronger in the world.” Mitt Romney has to explain what that would mean for our blood and treasure.
–Brian, NCPR
No argument there, Brian. Romney has his moment now and it is his to seize or lose. I agree that he has to lay out exactly what his approach and policy will be. If he doesn’t, he’s lost.
My objection was to your insinuation that he supports fringe ideas and is a Bush clone. Both sides have plenty of ammunition if we choose to go down that road.
One final note: as long as you keep bringing up Bush, how come when he “killed A LOT of people, and bombed a lot of targets, and put a lot of people in prison, and broken up several dangerous terror plots” it was not regarded as an expression of strength, but rather, an indication of failure? It’s tough trying to have it both ways, ain’t it?
“We know what Obama has done to project strength. His administration has killed A LOT of people, and bombed a lot of targets, and put a lot of people in prison, and broken up several dangerous terror plots.”
Brian,
Agreed. And I think it is fair for you as a journalist to ask the president directly what he plans to do now that he has abandoned many of the tactics that were used to allow us to make these gains?
The president could not have “pulled the trigger” on the 9-11 mastermind if he had not relied on information gained through torturing detainees in secret CIA prisons. Now stopping these policies is a good development but how is that going to change what we will accomplish in the future. The president has never been asked these difficult questions. Romney needs to be specific as well but the president cannot just run on accomplishments that were (in part) made possible by his predecessor. Especially since he has abandoned much of what helped “him” make these gains.
Perhaps we have simply gone back to the old policy where we have no “official” policy and we do these things anyway. My guess is only the “policies” have changed things on the ground probably look pretty much the same. Perhaps Bush was just trying to be more honest about what we had to do.
Larry –
Right now, Mitt Romney is standing by a statement that President Barack Obama sympathizes — his word, echoed by the Republican National Chairman — with people who attacked and murdered US officials.
That, in my view, is fringe. I can’t remember a previous instance in American political history when a presidential candidate from a major party accused his counterpart of actually sympathizing with our nation’s enemies.
Being “soft” is one thing. That’s a debate that one can engage in and marshal facts for and against. But suggesting that a sitting president is somehow in sympathy with murderers and terrorists?
It is an astonishing claim, far more radical than, say, arguing that Obama was born outside the US.
–Brian, NCPR
Brian: how can you say that Obama didn’t factually apologize over and over.
Are you arguing over syntax? He didn’t say “I Obama apologize for the United States”, I agree.
He did say over and over, “We’ve (Americans have) made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions. ” Berlin, 2008
In the context of torture and human rights with respect to foreign nations.
He most certainly did fault the United States while speaking in foreign countries.
No, he probably didn’t say, “apologize”, if that is your argument.
But you can’t do it with make-believe. You can’t repeat the notion that th president apologized over and over, when he simply factually didn’t. You can’t throw out nutty stuff like suggesting that the commander in chief of the United States “sypathized” with a murderous mob killing US officials.
They can, they have, and they will continue to do so if they think it will get votes.
JDM – I don’t mean to assign you a bunch of homework…but is that one quote your best argument? And, well, do you disagree with that quote?
Obama also said this during the 2008 campaign:
“This country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that’s not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that’s not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that’s not what keeps the world coming to our shores.
“Instead, it is that American spirit – that American promise – that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend. That promise is our greatest inheritance.”
I’m just not sure that speech equates with a guy who hates America. His policies may be wrong, but the idea that he wants to humble our country or that he sympathizes with our nation’s enemies — I just don’t think it’s born out by the facts.
–Brian, NCPR
I think that if you keep saying over and over again that the video is disgusting and reprehensible (which it appears to be I have never seen it I will take Secretary Clinton’s word on that) the message that the violence is the real issue gets lost in the translation.
“What they did to you was just awful, just awful, now you also should not have done what you did in response”
That does seem like “sympathy” to me. Brian, why not?
“Romney’s own policy statement doesn’t say that — it actually praises the Arab spring. So what would he do differently, to support American interests in that changing part of the world. So far he doesn’t say.”
From what you report is on his website Romney has told us what he’d do. He’d appoint someone else to figure out the Middle East, apparently separately from the rest of our foreign policy (but not one of those detestable ‘Czars’). It sounds as if he’d prefer to focus on his economic policy and delegate messy foreign affairs to an appointee.
He continues to display that when it comes to foreign policy he is out of his depth. Unfortunately a president can’t just deal with the issues he/she would like to and delegate the rest. At least in broad policy terms the president has to be “the decider” as Bush would say.
I, for one, am proud to be a citizen of a country that has never, ever, made a mistake.
Nearly all politicians will show a certain degree of shamelessness and “say anything to get elected” but Romney is guiltier than most.
Brian Mann: I choose that quote because it took very little time, and no, I don’t want to spend more time finding more quotes like it.
Fortunately, there is a movie out where someone has done a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to vetting the president.
Obama’s pastor went on record saying that Obama does not bind himself to telling the truth. Translation – Obama is a liar, according to his own pastor.
Therefore, it really doesn’t matter what he says. We judge him by what he does.
Well it will be interesting to see if the Justice Department and US law enforcement have indeed “identified” the person who posted the video. THAT is the real determination of what Obama believes about this situation. If he is using the US government to investigate and harass people who speak out in the wrong way that might “offend” Islamic sensibilities that is a real real problem.
I think that is what Romney should focus on, Holder follows Obama’s orders.
The video isn’t that disgusting compared to the horrible rotten stuff that flows out of the depths of US popular culture, the internet and so forth. I mean come on you can still watch Daniel Pearl’s head getting cut of. Maybe WE should riot over that? Our good friends in Egypt, Pakistan and Libya didn’t seem that “offended” over that.
At some point we have to say enough is enough to these people.
Romney’s spokesman has said that he won’t be bound to fact checkers. So he’s no different.
Vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. At least you have an idea what you’re getting with them.
Mervel: all religious extremists are poisonous to civilized society. Period.
No I totally disagree. Religious extremism isn’t the problem. The acceptance and love of violence, murder and mobs is the problem. For example the Amish are by every reckoning religious extremists, their whole life is re-ordered around God. Buddhist Monks are religious extremists, Christian Benedictine Monks are religious extremists. We could go on, it comes down to acceptance of violence and savagery that is the problem. Certainly SOME religious extremists are toxic, but so are porn dealers and drug lords and every other sort of social scourge.
Mervel, hits on a good point. That “love of violence” comes from our very nature. Without some kind of civilized society and the morality that it forces onto us we all lean toward the savage. Some conservatives will disagree but we are all evolved from the same stock and violence is in our nature. It is part of the reason why we are still here. But now we have evolved a civil society that tames that violent nature, when that breaks down we see the consequnces.