As discussed last week, who is the “real” Mitt Romney is not
exactly clear. Is he the Romney who spoke candidly at a rich donor fundraiser,
or the man who deceives viewers about the reality of his economic and tax plan,
which benefits no one save his own wealthy class? Having basked in his debate
“victory,” Romney is now attempting to “toughen up” his foreign policy
“credentials,” which if we recall his remarks in that secret fundraiser, included
his belief that there was no two-state solution in Palestine—which would be
practical only if Israel and the Palestinians agreed to a combined state based
on mutual benefice, and that seems highly unlikely given the attitude of Hamas
and hardline Zionists; Romney’s mindset is that the Palestinians do not want
peace and are culturally “inferior,” and that the best “solution” is to simply
allow time to sort things out as it may. Of course, this has very much been the
case for the pasr 60 years, with no end in sight. This is not “visionary”
foreign policy, and if Barack Obama and his predecessors have not succeeded in
brokering a peace agreement, simply giving up does nothing to move the process
forward. Romney has “modified” his opinion on the matter since he was exposed,
but it should be clear that whatever he says now flies in the face of his true
beliefs.
Romney has criticized Obama’s withdrawal of troops from
Iraq, stating that he should have left a token force there. Romney’s naïveté in
this matter is stunning. Forgetting the cost of retaining such a presence, one
should remember that the history of the U.S. occupying any Middle East country
has been far from “peaceful” or productive in the long term. Examples of this are the bombing of the Marine
barracks in Beirut, the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia—the stated reason
of Osama Bin Laden for turning from an “ally” against the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan, to a blood enemy—and helping to initiate the return to tribal and
ethnic violence which characterized Iraqi society in the post-colonial period,
and engulf U.S. forces in it. If the U.S. had convince the current Iraqi government
to an indefinite presence of U.S. forces in the country, there would have been
little incentive for insurgents and al-Qaeda to discontinue targeting U.S.
forces—just as they have shown little interest in a peaceful transition to
democracy today, with an average of 20 attacks a day. Continued occupation of
the country would only have led to more U.S. casualties to little positive
result, especially since the Iraqi “government” would continue to lose
credibility if it was propped-up by the U.S.—and we have seen the results of
this when the pro-West Shah was deposed and replaced by the current anti-West
regime in Iran.
In other examples of Romney’s “expertise,” he accused Obama
of playing footsy with Iran. He says that he wants “tougher sanctions” against
Iran, although he has not stated how far beyond the current sanctions he would
go. Romney has criticized Obama’s “leading from behind” in the Libyan uprising;
but that is the kind of right-wing, chest-beating posturing that has cost this
country dearly in money and blood. It was lesson we could have learned in
Iraq—without having to deceive the public and the world why we were there. In
regard to Egypt, Romney has said he would continue economic and military assistance so long as it abides by the peace treaty with
Israel; we should be glad to hear that he actually supports the current law
that makes that a condition for aid.
Romney is also telling us that he supports seeking out and
arming Syrian opposition groups that are our “friends.” The problem, of course,
is that if such groups that conform to our wishes actually exist, they tend to
be somewhat less enthusiastic in the use of guns and explosives—unlike, say,
the Muslim Brotherhood, the Ahrar al-Sham, Salafists and other Islamic jihadist
groups from inside and outside the country, which have essentially hi-jacked
the “revolution” even though they supposedly comprise the minority of those engaged
in the uprising. These groups have always been opposed to the secular nature of
the current regime, and they desire nothing less than the kind of ultraconservatism
of “originalism” we currently see on the
U.S. Supreme Court—outdated, anti-modernist and completely reactionary and
oppressive. While it is believed that al-Qaeda has a minimal presence currently
in Syria, their influence on affairs is greater than their numbers; al-Qaeda
operatives are known to be engaged in bomb-making and providing training in
insurgent techniques. There is no doubt that this “assistance” will go far in
expanding al-Qaeda’s influence in the country, and is just another example of
how in the Middle East, “regime change” tends to be an exchange between two
evils; the problem is that we are not dealing with right-wing Latin American
murder regimes who will do the bidding of the U.S..
The reality is that Romney’s policy assertions mean little
in practical terms, let alone substantial terms. Obama’s policy outside of Afghanistan (a war he did not initiate) reflects the truism enunciated by British Prime
Minister Lord Palmerston, when the subject of intervening on the side of the
Confederacy during the American Civil War arose: “He who in quarrels interpose,
will often get a bloody nose”—and no place is this more true than in the Middle
East today. And of course Romney has found time to criticize Obama’s 2014
timetable of evacuating Afghanistan as a
"politically timed retreat"—which, of course, he has
not only not offered an alternative vision, but admittedly supports the time
table.
Meanwhile, it was only after several embarrassing gaffes on his
recent “foreign policy” trip and of accusing Obama of essentially being an
Islamic jihadist because he “supported” the attackers of the U.S. consulate in
Libya who killed the U.S. ambassador, that sore loser John McCain suggested
that Romney offer a “clear vision” of his foreign policy goals. What is “clear”
is that Romney has not offered a “clear” alternative that makes sense—just one
that sounds “different” only in his lame efforts to find fault with Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment