How Obama can link Romney's foreign policy with the economy

In a prior blog, I linked Romney’s proposal to increase spending on the Pentagon by $2 trillion over ten years, an increase that was never requested by the Pentagon needed to meet the threats in the world.  The $2 trillion was also never in the controversial Ryan budget that even then did not reduce the deficit per the Congressional Budget Office.   How to pay for that over the top expense is where the rub is, and the cuts to all discretionary and even non-discretionary spending, would be 40%. 

 

There is another point:  If Romney is painted by Obama tonight as more bellicose and willing to intervene in Middle East conflicts, what will that cost us in terms of treasure, not to mention blood? Tied to that is how to pay for it.  One of the reasons George W Bush left Obama a $10 trillion deficit is that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not paid for. Instead, huge tax cuts were given that failed to stimulate the economy after 9/11.   In short, unless taxes are raised or draconian cuts in the social safety net and education, infrastructure development, and everything else not military, the economy will be in a more desperate position than it is now.  What improvements we have seen, a booming Wall Street, recovering housing market, consumer confidence, significant reduction in unemployment, creation of more private sector jobs, will be halted if not reversing our recovery.

What Obama can do in the debate: paint Romney 's foreign policy as bully, bluster, and blunder

What Pres. Obama can do in the debate Oct. 22 on foreign policy is to paint Romney as the one most likely to bully,  bluster and blunder  us into another war, keep us in Afghanistan longer, and result some politically intolerable cuts in domestic spending that will extremely harmful to all of us in some way.

 While most of Romney's official positions as outlined in op eds and speeches lately,  sound as if he differs only from Obama's policy to speak softly while carrying (and using) a big stick is by speaking loudly about the same.  That is a dangerous perception: Chest thumping and rhetoric is not a plan.  In fact, it might even talk the American public into approving the US getting  into a conflict in which we have either no direct interest or could get us in a quagmire: i.e. an Iraq blunder again.  The same group that talked us into Iraq is the same that is advising Romney on foreign policy.

Obama can make the point that Romney's brand of leadership is bluster leading to blunder. What is going on in the Middle East is a revolt of the next generation,  and the lid taken off of ethnic/religious  conflict that had been suppressed by dictators now deposed,  and a power struggle to fill the vacuum, forces beyond our control.  What it takes is an understanding of this to come out on the right side.  Shaking the big stick would be counter productive and shows Romney's inexperience.  His views are dangerous.  not only because they will make enemies where we need to make friends, but it will more likely lead us into war again and a drain on our economy and damaging to our future.

Romney has already made it clear that he views withdrawal from Afghanistan conditional on what is happening on the ground; Obama has stood by withdrawal the end of 2014 (while leaving some troops there) and made the case that waffling on the date would keep Afghanistan dependent on us instead of becoming responsible for their own security.

To rationalize this bully policy of bluster,, Romney plans to increase US expenditures for the Pentagon by $2 trillion over 10 years.  Not even the oft criticized Paul Ryan budget went that far as financier Steve Rattner, writing in the New York Times Oct. 14,points  out. He continues..

 .." the military is not asking for such an increase. Such an increase would force giant reductions, about 40 percent, in everything that’s left.

“Everything else” isn’t some catchall of small items, like feeding Big Bird. We’re talking about a vast array of programs including civilian and military pensions, food stamps, unemployment and disability compensation, the earned income and child tax credits, family support and nutrition, K-12 education, transportation, public safety and disaster relief. And on and on....No doubt some of what is buried within 'other mandatory and non defense discretionary spending' can be eliminated. Perhaps Americans won’t miss a few national parks or the space program.But also nestled within this category are critical outlays for investments in infrastructure and research.Eating the seed corn is never advisable....."

What Obama needs to do in the debate  is to get off the defensive posture regarding accusations of  leading from behind and misfires on BenGhazi and force the conversation to turn to an attack on Romney's bully, bluster, and blunder foreign policy. Romney would be the bull in the china closet.  Obama must put Romney on the defensive enough to shake voters' confidence in  Romney as a safe and preferable commander in chief. The case is there to be made.

Choices in policy toward the Middle East...foment fear or support moderates

In the wake of the anti American riots in the Muslim world, we are going to hear some important debates in the next couple of months about our foreign policy post Arab Spring.  There are two conflicting  visions:   support of democratic leaning moderates  or a militarily aggressive  America to be feared.

 Per a recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal , former Vice President Cheney’ daughter Liz wrote “In too many parts of the world, America is no longer viewed as … an enemy to be feared.” The GOP talking point is  that  Pres. Obama is a weak leader  and that we should make our military more powerful..More powerful to do what?  The kind of leadership Romney promises  is mostly bluster, with little difference with  the Obama administration in proposed actions.

 

 Times have changed since Dick Cheney was in office post  9/11.  The tactics  of invasion and occupation the Bush administration  applied to Iraq and Afghanistan unintentionally  defined the limits of American power in spite of every ounce of blood and treasure we could pour into the conflicts.  The results were the  longest wars in our history, a huge national debt, the staggering casualties to our military, and a question of whether whatever progress we have made in those countries will stick. The will of the war weary American people to sacrifice in order to conduct another war has evaporated.  The rest of the world knows  that, too, and no fear mongering bluster to the contrary will fool anyone.  

It is not that  Obama does not use fear tactics.  He just made them more surgical with the use of drones, special forces, and better human intelligence.  While the drone attacks have angered many in the Arab world ,   at least there is less  death of innocents and cost in blood and money that invasion/ occupation of  entire nations caused..     

Since  the Arab spring, the US has been riding a nearly out of control tiger.    The Arab street  now controls their own destiny and their democratically elected leaders are still finding their way . Military threats worked with dictators  depending on US support or fearing  consequences, but  bullying tactics breed only more anger among the masses who do not think strategically .    There is also a power struggle  between extremists and  more moderate elements. .The offending film provided the  excuse for violence and exploitation by leaders for their political benefit.  US support of their oppressors in the past  still feeds long standing rage . Arab anger  over unchanging US policy toward Israel will   linger   until there is a  solution,  but many have not  yet credited the supportive role of the US in unhorsing their dictators.

 President Obama demonstrated leadership  these past couple of weeks . Romney    blundered  as he tried to turn a US security crisis into a partisan political talking point and later had to gall to say that if he had been president, these attack on embassies would not have happened.  How so? Drop a few drones on the demonstrators;  light the tinder box of  Arab anger with  bluster? Threaten to invade their countries if they ever let such events happen again? Of course not. He was, as usual long on  criticism and short on what he would do differently.

Instead, both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the President used the  events as teaching moments about the values fundamental to US  democracy:  The President  picked up the phone and called l Egypt’s President Morsi, reminding him  that his failure to protect our embassy and to hold back the demonstrators, jeopardized  whether or not we regarded  him as an ally with  the billion in  assistance friendship implied.  By the next day, the demonstrators were moved back, the Muslim Brotherhood called for peaceful demonstrations and the embassy was protected.  

(This is a version of a column that appeared in the e and print editions of the Sky Hi Daily News today)