In G.O.P. Race, Foreign Policy is Mainly a Footnote
Many foreign policy experts regard such proposals as head-scratchers, at best, and the Republican presidential candidates have been prone to occasional blunders and posturing, as well, when delving into international affairs — that is, when they have had anything to say about the topic at all. It has often been an afterthought in the campaign — in the CNN/Tea Party debate last month, it was the second-to-last question, before the one about whether the candidates would plant vegetable gardens or put in horseshoe pits at the White House. In an election in which the economy is the overriding focus, neither candidates nor voters bring it up much on the stump. Mitt Romney sought to change that on Friday when, during his first major foreign policy address before an audience of crisply clad, closely shorn cadets at The Citadel in Charleston, S.C., he called for restoring cuts to the military budget, spending more on missile defense <a href="http://www.ecigs-store.com/egob-002-p-8.html"><strong>v2 electronic cigarette</strong></a> and being tougher with Iran. But he did not offer any specifics about troop levels in Afghanistan, saying he would conduct a review. And as much as anything, he used the opportunity to make a case that President Obama had surrendered American leadership around the world. “If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on earth, I am not your president,” Mr. Romney said. “You have that president today.” If they are united in their criticism of Mr. Obama, though, the Republican candidates differ on other issues, including the war in Afghanistan, and the primary campaign is to some degree a battle for control over the direction of foreign policy after a decade in which the party was defined by the hawkish stances of President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee. They have sought to capture the populist sentiment coursing through their party, as with Mr. Romney’s call for a tough trade stance toward China. But they have hardly discussed how budget constraints at home might limit their ability to project American power or what specifically they would do to break the logjam on Middle East peace talks. At a time when Mr. Obama can point to the killing of Osama bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda’s senior leadership, the Republican field is constrained in suggesting that Mr. Obama does not have the experience or fortitude to keep the nation safe. So the candidates are shifting to an argument that Mr. Obama has been too quick to apologize for the United States and unwilling to promote American exceptionalism. “The message is that we unapologetically defend and promote America,” said Richard Grenell, who was the spokesman for the American mission to the United Nations under Mr. Bush. “We will not apologize for thinking America is exceptional; if you read Obama’s Cairo speech, and see what the administration promotes at the United Nations, and look at how we sent the message that we’re resetting our relations with Russia, it’s an admission that we’re apologizing for past policy.” On Afghanistan, where 100,000 American troops remain, the candidates <a href="http://www.ecigs-store.com/greentank-002-p-15.html"><strong>electronic cigarette with</strong></a> have been all over the map, but have yet to engage seriously with one another on their positions. Mr. Romney offered no specifics on Afghanistan during his speech on Friday, just saying he would “order a full review of our transition to the Afghan military.” Mr. Perry, perhaps the most opaque so far on foreign policy, said during the CNN/Tea Party debate that the United States should continue to have a “presence” in Afghanistan, but that it was time to start turning responsibility for the country over to the Afghans. Mr. Perry has not disclosed who is advising him on foreign affairs and has not given an address on the topic.
|
Linear Mode
