Monday, October 8, 2012
Romney's Missing Foreign Policy
Here you guys go. This is an Op-Ed article from the New York Times talking about how Mitt Romney needs to capitalize on foreign policies. The article references political hotbeds such as Syria Libya, and Egypt. To start however, the author says that we need to understand how America has changed since 2001 with the war on terrorism and the uprising of political unrest around the Middle East. Interestingly enough though, the author never really mentions Bush that much even though she referenced a timeline that included both of his presidential terms. The author brings up bitter sentiments that I am sure most Americans (myself included) feel such as a resentment of America from other nations for wars and police actions despite America's large involvements and casualties and expenditures in these conflicts. Among other things, a key point I found interesting was Obama's mix and matched policies involving the Middle East. How does he support the rebels in Libya to overthrow a tyrant, yet merely watching while Syria undergoes a very bloody revolution that claims innocent lives? Also highlighted are how outspoken Obama is against Iran yet he legitimizes the country's regime and hands out billions of dollars in debt forgiveness to Egypt when their rights are still being suppressed in the street. I find the conflicts in Syria and Libya confusing, why isn't Obama offering aid? Is it more complicated than we know? As for Iran I would rather avoid dealing with them right now because I honestly think that is the best course of action given the economic state of everything in the world and our laundry list of other problems. As for Egypt I honestly do not know why Obama is handing out debt forgiveness...I mean in case anyone hasn't noticed we aren't doing so well ourselves in terms of debt as a country. Meanwhile I have other information that suggests Romney wants to step up involvement in Syria. The author believes Romney is onto a good foreign policy, though it just isn't refined. I would have to disagree considering Romney's policy has similarities with Obama's particularly on Iran and Romney also wants to take Israel which is one of the country's biggest foreign policies and deal with it later? Sorry I am not buying it. Considering the fact that many foreign countries also support Obama I would have to say Obama still has this edge, and even though this election seems to be centered more around the economy and jobs. Foreign Policy still makes a difference mostly because America does not want another war anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I may be getting at this wrong, but if Mitt Romney isn't allowed to have the same opinion as Obama with foreign policy, why push him to change HIS opinion? Gosh golly gee, one time the candidates actually agree on something. It must be the end of the world! But seriously, why is it a problem? I feel like it is good if they agree on something for once. I do find it weird that Romney isn’t coming out with his foreign policies sooner though. Is he hiding something? I remember Romney saying that he wanted to “kick the ball down the road” when it came to foreign policies (at least from what I heard). I find that stupid and bad for his campaign, but who knows what else Romney has to say about foreign policy plans. We’ll just have to wait and see.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I'm not exactly good with foreign policy, but if nothing has changed; why bother helping? Let them deal with their own problems as we are dealing with our problems. I don't really think we are getting much help from any other country with our economic downfall, so why don't we pay attention to what is wrong in the United States first, then help other countries later? I know, I sound cold, but if we cannot help our own country in problems such as the economy and jobs, what makes us think that we can help another country? We can't, at least not efficiently.
I completely understand where Aubrey is coming from when she talks about first helping ourselves before bailing out other countries. Maybe this could be why Mitt Romney’s foreign policy hasn’t really been put out for all to see. Like Aubrey said, just saying we are going to take care of ourselves first is harsh however, if someone is running for an office as important as the presidency, I feel that ideally the candidate should be more than willing to explain every part of his policy. I do realize that, that probably won’t win him the election though.
ReplyDeleteI too was very surprised to read that the candidates have similar ideas on certain policies. I do not particularly see this as a bad thing because when two parties like ours actually agree on something, it is probably a good idea.
One line that particularly bothered me in the article was when the author mentioned that Mitt Romney “must tell Americans that he won’t overlook terrorist threats, as the Obama administration did in Benghazi”. Terrorism is a very scary thing for our country. Considering all that is going on, on the other side of the world, all of the fighting and hate being demonstrated towards America, action against terrorism is something I find very, very important and something not to be overlooked.
Though Obama's foreign policy has been better in the Middle East compared to Bush's, it's not like the people of the Middle East suddenly appreciate our constant intervention in their countries. We take pride in fighting for the right cause and spreading American values, but that doesn't mean every decision we make is the correct one. Like the article said,Romney has to prove that he will not be the second coming of George W. and won't "answer all the mail with an F-16."
ReplyDeleteI agree with what the author of the article is saying, how Romney has to show how America has "provided the foundation for the most prosperous and successful era in human history." Instead, he responds to questions about foreign policy with ambiguous outlines of his plans that resemble Obama's. I think it's great that both candidates finally agree on something, but if they're both wrong, it doesn't make a difference.
It is important to care about other countries' problems sometimes as it affects are economy (i.e European economic crisis and turmoil in the middle east greatly affect U.S stock markets on a daily basis). I think that Governor Romney knows how people feel about domestic issues as opposed to foreign issues at the moment and that they tend to care about the economy and social issues more than about foreign affairs for the most part. This is because not much has happened during the Obama administration regarding foreign affairs and so it's probably better for the Romney campaign to just not talk about foreign affairs rather than make an issue out of nothing, especially considering the main issue this election and Romney's strong suit is the economy. As for the actual proposed policies, they are pretty vague, and again, this is probably because Romney knows he cannot help himself much by talking about foreign policy but he could accidentally say something that could get him into trouble. The statements both candidates made are so vague and obvious that it seems inevitable that they would agree. They both basically want Syria to stop mass murdering its own citizens and they don't want Iran to build any nuclear weapons, although they are both hesitant (Obama more so than Romney) to take serious military action in either situation coming off the heels of Iraq and, soon to be, Afghanistan. The Romney campaign may criticize the Obama administration for not providing more security at the embassy in Benghazi to protect the embassy, but I think whoever was in office would've overlooked such a small detail.
ReplyDeleteI think it is just good that they can finally agree on something. Regarding our involvement in foreign countries I think we should mind our own bushiness we have enough problems that we have to deal with right now domestically. We of course need to protect our asset's around the world but honestly we have enough on our plates. Dan is right in saying that due to globalization we need to pay attention to all other economies but that is price of interconnecting economies. Aubrey that is not being cold that is being realistic. You don't try to fix your neighbors car when yours is also broken you fix yours first then you see if you can help your neighbor.
ReplyDeleteI think we can all agree that it is crucial for Romney to clarify that he will not be a second George W. Bush. The article states that Romney is attempting to attack the mishaps of President Obama, but I'm not sure if Romney's potential plan will be effective. If the plan is effective, it will be hard for Romney to articulate the plan, while gaining the support of both friends and enemies due to an economically central fixated America.
ReplyDeleteThe article makes a great point by stating that Romney can avoid stepping in George W. Bush's footsteps by not being eager to go to war with Syria and Iran. George W. Bush's mishaps should not be repeated.
Mitt Romney attempts to attack President Obama's foreign policies. However, Mitt Romney has not successfully outlined any specific details to his plans. For example, his plans on Iran. The article also states that Romney's generalized plan matches up pretty well to Obama's current plan. So why is he attempting to criticize the President?
Even though all this foreign affair talk may seem important, I believe America's economy should be dealt with first. We have enough on our plate already.