Friday, October 7, 2011

Romney's Foreign Policy Speech

Mitt Romney gave a major foreign policy speech at The Citadel. Here are my comments on various parts.
America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world, or someone else will. Without American leadership, without clarity of American purpose and resolve, the world becomes a far more dangerous place, and liberty and prosperity would surely be among the first casualties.
This is an important point and one I want to hear from any presidential candidate. A strong America is not only good for the world in general, but more importantly it is good for America. I don't want a president who thinks the U.S. should fade into the background while some other power rises to dominance. Romney goes on to give a ringing defense of American Exceptionalism and then lists what he sees as specific threats. All of them require American strength.
there is one unifying thread that connects each of these possible threats: when America is strong, the world is safer.

Ronald Reagan called it “Peace through Strength” and he was never more right than today. It is only American power—conceived in the broadest terms—that can provide the foundation of an international system that ensures the security and prosperity of the United States and our friends and allies around the world.

American strength rises from a strong economy, a strong defense, and the enduring strength of our values.
He states 4 cores principles on foreign policy: 1. Clarity and resolve on our positions for both friends and enemies. This is something I advocate on a regular basis. 2. Promotion of open markets, representative government and human rights. This is pretty standard stuff, but I'd prefer an emphasis on advancing U.S. interests, and a realization that democracy and the promotion of human rights are not always in our interests depending on the situation. 3. Rapid reaction to events to defuse them before they require military action, and American military supremacy. I like the emphasis on military supremacy, but I'd rather hear that we are going to mind our own business and not feel like we need to interfere all over the world unless it is truly necessary for U.S. interests. 4. U.S. leadership in alliances and international actions/organizations, while retaining the right to act unilaterally. Sounds good.

Romney even lays out some specific actions he would take including strengthening the navy, prioritizing the deployment of a missile defense system, cybersecurity, deterrence against Iran, support for the so-called Arab Spring, a free trade economic policy toward Latin America, a full review of the situation in Afghanistan, greater support for Israel, closer ties with the UK, and talks with Mexico toward cooperation on their drug problems and bilateral security.

I'm in favor of strengthening the navy, our first line of defense and power projection. But as much as I support missile defense, I don't think we can afford it right now. I would not make deployment a priority. I've called for a policy of deterrence vs. Iran, and I'm all for free trade in general. I'd like to hear exactly what he means by supporting the Arab spring. I'm highly skeptical. I strongly support Israel, but don't think we should be increasing foreign aid to anyone any time soon, even allies. In fact, it would have been nice to hear about some cuts in aid, particularly in aid to places with hostile regimes or populations.

Despite my differences, overall this speech reinforces what I already thought about Mitt Romney -- that he is fairly solid on foreign policy.

7 comments:

  1. I thought he was nuts for suggesting we expand military spending.

    When are conservatives going to be fiscally responsible again?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Calls for strengthening the military is a political appeal to the base. He has to win the primary before he can run in the general election. And it would be possible to increase certain areas of military spending if major cuts are made in other areas of government expenditures, such as our foreign deployments.

    "When are conservatives going to be fiscally responsible again?"

    Despite the desire to spend more on the military, conservatives are still far more fiscally responsible than their political opposition.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Despite the desire to spend more on the military, conservatives are still far more fiscally responsible than their political opposition.

    They aren't, and that is sad, considering the party Republicans are being compared to.

    ReplyDelete
  4. We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world put together. We don't need to strengthen the navy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "They aren't, and that is sad, considering the party Republicans are being compared to."

    They are, and it isn't even close. The only party even thinking about reducing the size and expense of government is the GOP. No matter how much Republicans want to spend, Democrats always want to spend more. That's an iron law of American politics.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world put together. We don't need to strengthen the navy."

    I'm guessing you don't know much about the navy. Aircraft carriers are not the be all and end all of naval power.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What I like about Romney is that he's smart enough to tell people what they want to hear while knowing that it's absolutely impossible to reach those goals. (I'll take a politician over an zealot any day of the week.) Romney, if nothing else, is a fiscal conservative and I don't see him expanding military spending after the country has been bled white by two wars.

    ReplyDelete