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
400 attackers. 48 hours notice.
I can see why the media wants to make this about Romney.
The Obama spin crews are going to have to work all night to come up with excuses for Obama on this one.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/world/arab-leaders-reactions/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
So we see the leaders are on board with the idea that the real problem is this you tube video NOT the murderers.
I don’t know what does that say? Is this just a minority? I don’t think so.
Abcnews is already focusing on the movie and its cast.
Yeah, like that’s really important.
I’m sure the 400 attackers were sitting around a Starbucks in Libya, when suddenly they saw this movie, jumped up, and said, “I can’t believe it. We must avenge Mohammed, immediately”
That’s the path Abcnews seems to be going.
It is clear to me that JDM, Larry and Mervel have never spent any significant amount of time in a predominantly Moslem country and they don’t know any Moslems, Muslims, or Mussleman.
“The Smirk” on Romney’s face after his Wednesday news conference may be a watershed moment in this campaign. There is something very unsettling about how he conducted himself.
khl: so, you’re saying this behavior is typical of Muslims?
I’m saying that I hope nobody from the Muslim world is reading your comments, JDM, and judging the rest of us based on your words.
Obama’s Cairo speech in 2009, if not apologetic, was certainly indicative of how naive the community organizer from Chicago was.
“…and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.”
“We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops.”
“And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.”
—
And so, the bright, young president chose to back the Muslim Brotherhood in favor of our allies in Egypt. Hoping that teenagers in Kansas would soon be corresponding to those in Cairo.
JDM –
But aren’t you being selective? Here, by contrast, is what Romney’s platform says about the Arab Spring – not in 2009, but in 2012:
“The protests that have broken out across the Arab world bespeak a generational yearning for a better life and for human dignity, and present an opportunity for profoundly positive change. History may show that the individual who moved the Arab world from autocracy to the path of freedom was not a head of state, but a humble Tunisian street vendor.”
“Mitt will make available technical assistance to governments and transitional bodies to promote democracy, good governance, and sound financial management. He will convene a summit that brings together world leaders, donor organizations, and young leaders of groups that espouse the principles of representative government, religious pluralism, economic opportunity, women’s and minority rights, and freedom of expression and conscience in the Arab world.”
Romney also says more cautious things about the Arab Spring, but then so does Obama.
–Brian, NCPR
khl: “I’m saying that I hope nobody from the Muslim world is reading your comments, JDM, and judging the rest of us based on your words.”
Why? Do you think Muslims are a violent people?
Don’t you think they support one’s right to free speech?
I was reading the other day about some guy named Jesus who was an apologist for adulterers and all sorts of other deadbeats and criminals.
Stone them all!
“….our allies in Egypt.”
What a joke. We paid Egypt billions of dollars a year to be our “ally” and to be a “friend” of Israel. You know, that money that conservatives think is wasted (and in this instance they were correct). I doubt Egypt was any more our ally than is Pakistan.
Brian Mann:
Mitt has already stated in the past few days that he supports American values.
No apologizes nor pseudo apologizes. I assume he won’t be lowering his head below any despot’s heads, either.
I think, with the right approach, these goals are achievable.
Unfortunately, the current president believed the pointy-headed arguments about strength-through-weakness, and well, it’s not working out so well.
PNElba: “I doubt Egypt was any more our ally than is Pakistan.”
You and the president agree on this. He is taking a little more flack, however.
Who was it who used to say “JDM is a troll. Ignore him” ?
A wise person. JDM apparently isn’t interested in learning anything new here.
JDM –
I suspect that conservatives and Republicans are pretty deeply grieved by the fact that the Obama administration has pursued an aggressive and lethal campaign against Muslim terrorists over the last three years.
It’s a challenge not just to the GOP’s electoral arguments in 2012, but also to a larger political identity and brand. Democrats are supposed to be the party of Carter and Dukakis. Republicans are supposed to be the party of Reagan and Bush I.
So people keep repeating things like fuzzy (or overtly false) claims that Obama is an egg head intellectual who has a penchant for apologizing to our sympathizing with our enemies and that he doesn’t really support American values, despite the extraordinary body of factual evidence to the contrary.
It really amounts to fantasy wish fulfillment. They are campaigning against a candidate they wish existed.
Conservatives, meanwhile, also fail to say anything material or substantive about what they would actually do differently. Romney’s platform on his website is indistinguishable from Obama’s.
Romney’s team has claimed that the attack on American interests wouldn’t have happened if he was in the White House.
But the deadly attack on the marine barracks in Lebanon in the 1980s occurred while Reagan was in the White House.
And 9/11 happened when the second George Bush was in the White House.
So really…it’s hard to see how that assertion has any basis in reality.
I’ll repeat: The world is a dangerous place.
If Romney thinks he can make it a little less dangerous for American interests, he needs to say how.
–Brian,NCPR
OK, so how is the Obama approach to terrorism working out today? The TV news used those little flame icons to show where the anti-US protests have spread to and it looked like the whole damned place was on fire. Don’t make it about Romney now, or ask what he would have done. Today’s question is: How’s Obama doing?
Hey Brian,
Good morning. You never did answer my question yesterday, so I’ll repeat it.
How come when Bush “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?
You used the words quoted above as proof that Obama has a strong approach to foreign policy. I look forward to your answer.
Larry –
Expand your comment a bit. What is the connection between Obama’s policies and anti-American protests in the Arab world?
What does it say about Obama’s leadership that Muslim radicals are attacking us on his watch? And talk about this in context.
Ronald Reagan was president when terrorists bombed the US embassy in Beirut in 1983 and when the marine barracks was bombed later that year.
And when the US embassy was bombed in Kuwait later the same year…
How does Obama’s record vis a vis Islamic radicals differ from Reagan’s?
This isn’t an attempt to change the subject. It’s absolutely appropriate to judge Obama’s handling of this crisis.
But not in a vacuum. Other presidents, Republican and Democrat, have faced violent incidents with Islamic radicals.
Do you see Obama’s record here as substantively different?
–Brian, NCPR
Brian Mann: “What does it say about Obama’s leadership that Muslim radicals are attacking us on his watch? And talk about this in context.”
Obama’s naive view of the state of Libya and Cairo, for one. Libya could have been avoided had Obama
1) beefed up security, in general, for 9-11
2) been present at a few of his intel briefings and seen the specific threat 48-hours prior to the coordinated, pre-planned attack on the embassy
3) not backed the Muslim Brotherhood in the overthrow of Egypt
4) not gone to bed without knowing the outcome of the unfolding events in Libya the night of the attack
That’s all I can rattle off without thinking too hard…
“I’m saying that I hope nobody from the Muslim world is reading your comments, JDM, and judging the rest of us based on your words.”
Who cares what anyone thinks based on any of these comments?
If anyone is dumb enough to make any judgments based on anonymous blog post comments they are a lost cause.
People just need to learn to not react violently to anything they hear, read, or see.
We can’t lay the blame for these on-going protests at the feet of Obama. They have happened for the last 20 years, regardless of what Presidents have done or not done. You can’t control the expanding global media market, and people can’t control the crazy things others say and also people can’t control western global secularization. I think Brian posted a study some time ago on the inbox about the increasing world wide atheism. This really I think scares and worries traditional societies who have penchant for wanting to control thought and actions.
These mobs and protests are just going to have to run their course, they will not amount to anything in the end beyond bloodshed.
The biggest danger is that we respond in a way that shows we are concerned about what our citizens say in response to these mobs. It goes back to Brian’s other thread about free speech. Our free speech is more important than offending Muslim sensibilities, which need to be offended anyway.
Does violence work? Given that our government seems concerned about this “contemptible” 15 minute youtube video tells me that it does work. Did the State Department issue a concerned response to the “contemptible” art work titled “piss Christ” that showed Jesus in a vial of urine? There were some minor demonstrations and of course people talked about the close minded Christians who were anti-free speech. So I guess if we Christians had rioted and killed somebody, someone from the government would have spoken about that contemptible piece of art?
The double standard that we need to tip toe around Muslim sensibilities simply because Muslims living in the Middle East are bullies and other faith groups are easier to push around; is what is contemptible.
I’m guessing none, not one, of the 400 attackers ever saw the movie.
I’m guessing none, not one, of the 400 attackers understands English, anyway, even if they did see the movie.
The movie thingy is a news media template to try to:
1) cover Obama’s inept response
2) further erode Christian and conservative standing
3) gain viewers and make money (hey, there is the news BUSINESS)
From CNN:
“Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki: Iraq’s leader since 2006 said the movie on YouTube insulted “religious sanctities by some suspicious people and groups deserves the strongest condemnation and denunciation.”
He said the clip on YouTube is “devoid of any values but abusing of Muslims sanctities and their noble values.”
He urged a “quarantine” of “the racists” (behind the clip) in order to “stop them from spreading … their dangerous thoughts.” He then said that people should “refrain from resorting to violence and exercise the principles of Islam and its civilized values.”
I think he is being very honest about how many Muslims see things, they want to quarantine people to stop them from spreading “dangerous thoughts”. Which 15 years ago you could do in these countries, no more.
Brian,
Certainly, during the Reagan administration, there were attacks on US interests across the Middle East. Also during the Reagan administration we saw the release of the hostages from Iran, the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan (with considerable US support), the fall of crude oil prices by more than 50% and our victory in the Cold War. Not too bad.
Obama’s outstanding foreign policy achievement has been the killing of Osama bin Laden. He ended the war in Iraq but the situation in Afghanistan remains problematic. We have seen the Arab Spring but whether this helps or hurts us is not yet obvious. Oil prices have increased slightly.
It is perhaps unfair to compare Obama’s foreign policy to Reagan’s, but that’s what you asked for. With Reagan, you had a titan who left the US in a position of world leadership unparalleled in the 20th century. At best, I think we can say that, however well intentioned, Obama’s foreign policy hasn’t produced any results that compare to Reagan’s.
I’m sorry-
What is the difference between the reaction we’re seeing today across much of the Muslim world and the reaction to the Danish cartoons of Muhammad in 2005? There isn’t any.
JDM, your arguments that Obama is somehow responsible for the anti-American protests – or that his leadership (or lack of, in your opinion) made the protests worse – just don’t hold up.
We all know you don’t like Obama. Fine. We’re just asking that you re-hinge yourself and your arguments to reality.
BTW, you keep going on about Obama not attending his intel briefings. You’re simply repeating the disinformation from some (of the many) discredited Republican hacks.
Here are the details from the Washington Post (the same paper that published the original disinformation from GOP writer Marc Thiessen):
About the same time, the Republican National Committee and prominent Republicans such as Dick Cheney and John McCain threw another faulty bit of plumbing at Obama: that the president ‘does not attend his daily intelligence meeting’ more than half the time, in contrast to George W. Bush, who ‘almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.’ This claim was the work of former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, who writes a weekly online column for The Washington Post.
In reality, Obama didn’t ‘attend’ these meetings, because there were no meetings to attend: The oral briefings had been mostly replaced by daily exchanges in which Obama reads the materials and poses written questions and comments to intelligence officials. This is how it was done in the Clinton administration, before Bush decided he would prefer to read less. Bush’s results — Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and the failure to find Osama bin Laden — suggest this was not an obvious improvement.
A couple of additional thoughts:
As I mentioned before, I’ve lived and traveled in the Islamic world. Malaysia, in particular, is one of the globe’s most modern and vibrant societies.
But I think people — liberal and conservatives — who are anxious about the evolution of Muslim society writ large in the modern era are spot on.
We should be worried.
And I do think the West’s response to traditional Islamic culture in the coming months and years will be extraordinarily challenging.
The bigger truth here is that we have a massively complex encounter between a world that is leaning hard into the 22nd century and a world that is leaning backward hard into the 12th century.
I don’t say that to be dismissive of Islamic culture.
It is simply a fact that many of the most dynamic, influential leaders in Muslim culture believe and want and are willing to fight and die for things that are, literally, Medieval.
(Sadly, many of the most progressive and cosmopolitan Muslim thinkers have very little influence in their own culture, and are mostly speaking to an audience in the West.)
And because the modern world is so pervasive — satellite dishes, Youtube, cell phones, etc. — the fault line between these two worlds is in everyone’s living rooms.
It’s a dangerous situation. It will continue to be dangerous for a very, very long time.
–Brian, NCPR
The violence is the problem not the video that caused it. If making that clear to everyone causes trouble than so be it.
Like I said yesterday the initial response to this was good. The follow up response with Clinton’s statements were ridiculous (and yes Brain they were too sympathetic towards the mob).
They are the kind of statements that you make when you feel like you have a wolf by the ears.
A famous Jefferson quote:
“we have the wolf by the ear and feel the danger of either holding or letting him loose.”
Just read in the Times that Obama “rejected an appeal by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to spell out a specific “red line” that Iran could not cross in its nuclear program,” Great foreign policy, that! In a region where allies we can trust have been hard to find, Israel has always stood out.
OK, President Obama, your actions speak for themselves. What will you do when Iran tests a nuclear weapon? The cynical answer is that you don’t have to worry about it because Israel will never allow that to happen. When Israel destroys Iran’s nuclear capability, and they will, you can always apologize to Islam and distance the US from their actions. Do you think you can let Israel do the dirty work and still curry favor with the world of Islam? This situation with Iran is going to make Libya look like a schoolyard scuffle.
Brian Mann:
If extremists keep acting like barbarians, not like devout, respectable, mosque-going muslims, they will be portrayed as they are.
It is up to the respectable muslim community to denounce the radicals who are doing things “in their name”.
I haven’t seen one United States Emam in the news, anywhere, denouncing the actions in Libya. Not saying there aren’t any, but I would like to see a link to such an article.
The president does not want to act in a preemptive manner on anything. For example he said recently with Syria that the “red line” there was WHEN they used their chemical weapons. You are correct for the president the same line may exist with Iran. Maybe not, maybe he has some other plans?
As for testing a nuclear weapon, given their unambiguous statements, it is possible that they would TEST the weapon on Israel. What do they have to lose? If it works there will not be any retaliation.
In Egypt, protesters in Ciaro’s Tahrir Square could be seen carrying a 4-foot-tall poster of Usama bin Laden, and graffiti reportedly found on the U.S. Embassy there read: “Take care America. We have 1.5 billion bin Ladens.”
Lovely.
This isn’t about a movie. This has been a smoldering fire that was looking for a reason to ignite.
When a fire erupts, we don’t play with it and toss a few buckets of water on it. It requires serious attention.
There is nothing inherently wrong with much of the 12th century, the problem is forcing people to go to the 12th century that don’t want to go.
Power and control. If the minority of radical Muslims that wish to live in that century want to go there, I think they should. We have monastic communities right here in the US that live in many aspects of their life little differently than their brothers and sisters in those same communities did in the 12 and 13th centuries. The difference is they make the choice, most of the rest of us just go along with the modern world which is our choice also.
I wish the hardcore Islamic believers would take a cue from that model and learn that from a religious spiritual sense there is nothing to fear from the modern world, what is to fear is our own corruption both by the modern world and in reaction to the modern world. How strong is our faith and theirs? Is God in control or not?
We are all called to peace, both Muslim and Christian, the attempt to violently control others is not of God and shows a lack of faith in God.
‘This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims’
Jay Carney
Please, please, let’s put some adults in the White House.
Nobody has seen the video. It probably doesn’t exist. Does anywhere here have a link to it?
There is no video.
JDM, what are you talking about? You obviously have a computer you can check it out.
This is so not about some stupid video that most have never seen. From the beginnings of Islam the muslim focus has been on creating an Islamic “world” that excludes non-muslims and their influence. They want us all gone, all dead or some combination of the two. This is more of that.
I would appreciate it if 1 Liberal on this thread would admit to something … anything … that would show some common sense in this situation.
The Liberals first response is often diplomacy while the Conservatives are ready to fight.
However, as this situation grows more volatile, and the urgency is more apparent, any more lame comments from Jay Carney is going to make throw up.
Have you seen? 17 Embassies under siege.
I want to see some courage and leadership.
Oh yeah. I found the video in question.
Only a very weak people would claim this as their motivation for such violence.
Only a very small president would hide behind such trivial pooh pooh.
We live in sad times.
I think though that there is nothing to do except provide defense for our embassies or evacuate. Long term we can re-think how we want to deal with these issues.
There is nothing to be done at home the US did nothing wrong in this case we have nothing to apologize for as a country.
The thing we don’t want to do is go charging around there with our military there is no objective to be won with our military in this situation.
If they want us to leave lets leave.
I mean does anyone really care that we don’t have diplomatic relations with Somalia? I know I don’t and frankly if it is too dangerous to be in these barbaric places lets just leave them alone to their own devices.
There are plenty of people who watch the news out of the US and wonder how Americans, the people in the free-est richest society in the world can be so barbaric.
While we see the news about demonstrations in Muslim countries there are hundreds of millions of Muslims going about their daily activities in dozens of countries who only see protests in the news themselves and have no interest in participating.
Obama has an advantage and disadvantage. The advantage is his daily briefing. The disadvantage, to himself particularly and perhaps is ourselves is the degree to which he has to hold his tongue because he knows more.
Romney needs to hold his tongue for 12 hours because he probably gets no more information than the rest of us. It isn’t unreasonable to say ” I haven’t gotten enough information on what is happening to respond.” Especially when some in the press are trying to play gotcha as the recordings show.
I want to know if any In Box contributors know 5 Muslims personally? How many have ever been to a Muslim country? How many have spent more than a week in a Muslim country? Of those people who have, how many aren’t in the military?
What difference does it make, KHL? If a man comes at me with a gun I don’t need to know his life history to know I’d better protect myself.
khl: why, are you thinking of a move?
KHL
I do.
I still stay in contact with a couple of them I knew in College. I have been to Turkey that is about it as far as a Muslim country goes. We used to have spirited discussions about religion, we actually had a lot in common. I remember they were more offended by the offenses to the Christian faith than most Christians were. Even these guys, college educated etc, just had no tolerance for blasphame. I remember we were talking about music and Black Sabbath came up and my friends from Lebanon didn’t understand the words? So I explained it to them, they responded with some profanities and said in their country they would not last very long before being blown up.
We have become so numb to the gross and disgusting disrespectful nature of our culture I do think we forget how truly offensive it is to most devout people, regardless of religion.
There is just a different feeling about making fun of the Sacred. Right now they have to figure out that in a global media/internet connected world, they can’t control that, no one can. So I think in this case we have to be measured in our response, but certainly we have nothing to apologize for.
This is a really tough topic, complex, lands smack in the middle of our post 9/11 culture war sensitivities and I think the conversation here has been pretty darn interesting. Congrats, all. Look for a post on Romney’s uphill climb in Ohio tomorrow. And have a great weekend.
–Brian, NCPR