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
.png)
In many ways, Brian, it’s not that complex at all. Radical islamists hate us and want us dead and/or gone from their lands. They have little trouble recruiting foot soldiers for their cause. Nothing we do on their behalf mitigates that hatred. Whether or not they are a majority I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter as long as the radicals have unlimited funding and government support. We constantly make the mistake of thinking that they share common beliefs and values with us; they do not and we can’t interact with them the way we would with people who do.
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.
Geez JDM turn off FOX News and use google. It’s not that hard.
http://www.cordobainitiative.org/2012/09/the-attacks-in-libya-are-not-in-keeping-with-islamic-principles-of-justice/
More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/us/american-muslim-leaders-condemn-attacks.html
http://www.voanews.com/content/muslims-religion-attack/1506903.html
http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/169493306.html
http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslims-and-muslim-organizations-condemn-attacks-on-u.s.-embassies/0019348
http://www.iscf.org/media/news/muslims-condemn-attacks-on.html
Mervel,
I happen to know hundreds of Muslims, too many to count accurately.
I know Muslims who live in NY, California, Colorodo, Virginia and DC, Toronto, London, Amsterdam, Kabul, Peshawar, Thailand, Australia and more. I know Muslims who married Christians, Jews and other Muslims. I know Muslims who married Jews who are Bhuddists. I know Muslims who served in our Armed Forces in Afghanistan. I know Muslims who are engineers and doctors, taxi drivers and hot dog cart vendors. I know Muslims who mopped floors in the World Trade Center. I know Muslim women who trained to be doctors who work as dental hygienists. I know Muslims who speak 5 languages who work for the military pretending to be Middle Eastern villagers for training exercises. I know Muslims from royal families who work ordinary jobs to pay their bills. I know Muslims who drink alcohol and eat pork. I know lots of Muslims who have families and send their kids to school because they want their kids to have a good future.
I grew up in a Muslim country and have visited a few.
There are more than a billion Muslims and I know a few hundered of them. I can assure you that Muslims are human beings just like Americans and there is no way to make a sweeping generalization.
There are Muslims who are Arabs, Persians, Turks, Indian, Kurd, Chinese, Indonesian, Tatar, in fact virtually every ethnicity you can think of. And lots of them are Americans. Good, loyal Americans.
In fact, I know Muslims who actually fought the Soviet Union. They aren’t just cowardly blowhards with a line of bull like some of the commenters here.
I can assure you that Muslims are human beings just like Americans and there is no way to make a sweeping generalization.
Let’s remember this the next time a Christian does something or stands for something the liberals don’t like and the liberal media takes it and runs with it.
Gee, Kathy, Christians have been portrayed as monsters? I must have missed that.
KHL,
I probably know a couple of hundred people total in my whole life (well that know me back). So if I was more social maybe I would no more Muslims!
But I would agree there is no way to make a sweeping generalization about a billion Muslim people, there are also about a billion Catholics and two billion Christians in the world and the same holds for them.
But the issue we are discussing is not world wide Muslims, the issue we are discussing are Muslims living in traditional societies in the Middle East and what they believe and why in general we see these sorts of protests.
That is where I think you are missing the point. It isn’t about Muslims living in traditional societies. It is about people living in societies that have been wracked by warfare or in transition from authoritarian regimes.
We shouldn’t allow ideology to affect our perception of the problem because any solution premised on faulty assumptions creates more problems for the future just as our support during the Cold War for strong man leaders around the world has created problems for us in the recent past, today and will continue to be problems for us in the future.
Let’s not forget that we once supported Khaddafi, and Saddam Hussein, and Manuel Noriega, Pinochet, the Taliban …
I would disagree. This is a uniquely Islamic (albeit a minority Islamic) response to western media productions, this is exactly the same with the Danish Cartoons and you know things like not letting women drive or vote or stoning people. Those things are not the fault of the United States and the West.
You said,
“We shouldn’t allow ideology to affect our perception of the problem because any solution premised on faulty assumptions creates more problems for the future”
I totally agree, I would say that your ideology is not letting you see what is going on in these countries. You are still stuck using the blame everything on the Colonialism lens. Which simply is not true in this case and in many other cases. It also assumes these societies are childlike pawns of the massively powerful US and all of their actions all of their lives everything they are, is a reaction to the US.
I think we agree however that our entanglement with these countries and societies is a no win situation for us or them and it is time to totally disengage.
Speaking of the Cold War I am sure you remember the “Domino Theory”. How if we “lost” Vietnam we would lose all of Asia, one country after the next falling to the unstoppable curtain of communism. I personally think we are seeing a new version of the Domino theory. Now we have to be engaged (occupy or manipulate) with these countries or they will all fall like domino’s one by one becoming failed states spawning Terrorists who will come and destroy us all, plus the big domino Saudi will fall and we will lose all of the oil etc and on and on.
The domino theory was wrong then and it is wrong now. I encourage people to visit Vietnam today, see the results of US NON-intervention.
I dont disagree that there is a convergence of religious fundamentalism and several other factors that led to riots. I don’t believe there is very much difference between one flavor of religious fundamentalist and another.
The root of the problem is not in religion — and I say that as an atheist. The problem is in a network of societies in which there are too many young men without meaningful work and who are easily stirred to violence. There are periods of violent rebellion in every society spurred by particular events of the particular time. But religion IS often used by people who want to manipulate events and as a Catholic you should be very familiar with that sort of thing.
I’m not blaming everything on Colonialism, but the end of Colonialism left a set of circumstances that haven’t worked themselves out. I never thought the Domino Theory was a very good one — but it was a good way for military contractors to make lots of money.
I don’t believe in intervention either as a general rule, but I do believe there are times we can and should use our status and power to direct world events. I thought Obama did a very good job in Libya in working to rid the Libyans of Qaddafi. And I believe that most Libyans are thankful for our support. But we need to be very careful about trying foist our choice of leadership onto another society. We need to support democratic ideals even when we think they may not be in our immediate best interest, but take a longer view that a democratic society will, in the end, work out for the best for the interests of the particular society, for our interests and for the world as a whole.
In Libya we lost a very good Ambassador, the kind we need many more of. The USA needs to have many more people like Ambassador Stevens working for our interests around the world. Everyone will praise the bravery of American troops but we rarely think about the bravery of our State Department personnel around the world who are often real heros in eliminating conflict before it starts.
In the end I believe we will find that the attack on the Libyan embassy compound had essentially nothing to do with the stupid video in question just as our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11.
“Radical Islamists hate us and want us dead and/or gone from their lands. … We constantly make the mistake of thinking that they share common beliefs and values with us; they do not and we can’t interact with them the way we would with people who do.”
It’s a sure thing that if our history looked anything like the history of the mid-east over the last few centuries, we too would have radical fundamentalists looking for any excuse to incite violence against outsiders to try to drive them from our land, and we would call them freedom fighters. So it’s not quite right to say that they don’t share common beliefs and values with us.
That said, it’s true that the violence has little to do with the actual video– it was merely a pretense. But we should never have gone into Iraq, and we should get out of Afghanistan.
“Radical Islamists hate us and want us dead and/or gone from their lands. … We constantly make the mistake of thinking that they share common beliefs and values with us; they do not and we can’t interact with them the way we would with people who do.”
It’s a sure thing that if our history looked anything like the history of the mid-east over the last few centuries, we too would have radical fundamentalists looking for any excuse to incite violence against outsiders to try to drive them from our land, and we would call them freedom fighters. So it’s not quite right to say that they don’t share any common beliefs and values with us.
That said, it’s true that the violence has little to do with the actual video– it was merely a pretense. But we should never have gone into Iraq, and we should get out of Afghanistan.
Walker, whether you like it or not, we have vital interests in the Middle East, not to mention the humanitarian good we have done. Yes, good, unless you think the Iraqis would have been better off with Saddam. The Pakistanis have nuclear weapons and Iran aims to have them, too. Is that who you would like to see in charge? It’s not east, but then, it never is.
Tell it to the families of the Iraqi war casualties.
Imagine what the mideast might be like today if we (Western powers generally) hadn’t gone about mucking things up in the first place.
“good, unless you think the Iraqis would have been better off with Saddam.”
Don’t forget, though, that Saddam was our boy under George H.W. Bush, before he invaded Kuwait, and after, GHWB helped keep Saddam in power (How George H.W. Bush Helped Saddam Hussein Prevent an Iraqi Uprising)
Who can say what the region would have been like today had Western nations not been pushing things around for ninety years or more. The more we meddle, the more we have to meddle. The only ones who benefit are the war contractors and weapons manufacturers, who walk away with billions.
The fascinating thing is how quickly we have lost any sense both on the Left and on the Right of the “lessons” from Vietnam.
Afghanistan IS Vietnam, I don’t understand why neither side seems able to grasp that? Maybe it is too obvious and like in Vietnam we had so much invested after all those years we just kept staying and lying about the progress and thinking we could “win”. I mean look at these latest attacks on our soldiers by those they are working along side? I mean classic Viet Cong, the Viet Cong were recruited from the South Vietnamese Army our allies. Look at Kharzie, classic Vietnam corrupt “ally” playing both sides to keep his power, playing the role of Thieu. Pakistan is playing the role of China/North Vietnam. It’s a script being played over and over in the Middle East countries we invade.
We are going to lose, they hate us, its not hard to grasp.
The model of disengagement works. Look at Vietnam we left, communism didn’t take over and today Vietnam is our friend and is doing fine.
If we disengage militarily from the Middle East they WILL work things out. There will be civil wars, there will be bloodshed, but civil war is part of Democracy. Civil war was a major part of our Democracy. Within 30 years it will be much better than if we continue the current course.
NO ONE likes to be invaded and occupied, regardless of how bad the population may hate their own leaders.
Mervel,
Afghanistan doesn’t even supeficially resemble Vietnam. By the way, the Communists did take over South Vietnam after we left.
I know what a disaster! Look at the end result today the place is fine and we can travel there and there is not even lingering animosity. The Domino theory was totally debunked, and we know see that the total war was an utter waste.
Afghanistan very very much resembles Vietnam. Multiple waves of European attempts at domination and occupation, all failing. The Americans coming in at the end, in Vietnam we followed the French, in Afghanistan we are following the Russians and the English. Corrupt local leaders, a tribal society with a long history of violence and pushing out outsiders, often using the terrain to their benefit. We can’t use agent orange in Afghanistan, but if we could find some way to level the mountains we would. You have an insurgent force which is strong being bankrolled probably from Pakistan, just like the Viet Cong being supported by the North and by China.
The comparisons are pretty startling and right in front of our face. Of course the final comparison is that the Afghanistan people don’t want us there and we will lose and are losing and no one from the Military or the government seems to want to speak the truth.
Mervel, Larry’s right that the communists took over, and what followed was 15 years of misery that ended only after free market reforms were instituted. Of course we’ll never know what would have happened if the U.S. hadn’t gotten involved in the first place– obviously communism would have been imposed sooner, but it seems unlikely that they could have caused as much misery as our presence did. (Wikipedia)
I agree with you that we seem to do a lousy job of foreign intervention generally.
The Free Market???? What are some sort of right wing guy now. I thought socialism was good.
Just kidding.
I just believe in self determination. We can’t control events or other nations and peoples, our power is not what we believe that it is, this is shown to us over and over. In the long run people have to do things on their own. Yes we have to defend ourselves and our vital interests I am not a total isolationist. For example the drone assassinations against Al-Quida have worked, I would keep those up long after we have left the region.
However the Taliban have never attacked the US, the Taliban never did anything to us until we attacked them. The same holds for Iraq.
Did they let al quida run around in their country? Yes and we were and are justified in going after al quida in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. What that has to do with training some sort of new Afghanistan Army and creating some sort of country and government and military bases and putting tens of thousands of troops there running around building roads on one hand and killing insurgents on the other , is what I don’t understand.