This presidential election will likely determine whether the United States and Russia undertake a major new reduction of nuclear weapons; whether U.S. arms are supplied to Syrian rebels; whether more U.S. troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan next year; and whether Washington renews pressure on Israel to accept terms for a Palestinian state. It could significantly lower the threshold for a U.S. military strike against Iran.
You wouldn’t know any of that from listening to the conventions, of course. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama appear determined to avoid serious debate. The GOP convention last week echoed with vague slogans about “American leadership” and Obama’s “weakness.” This week, expect to hear lots from Charlotte about the killing of Osama bin Laden and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
That doesn’t mean, as some in the foreign policy world like to argue, that this presidential election won’t change much, even if Romney wins. It’s true that U.S. interests and the pursuit of them tend to remain broadly consistent across presidencies. Obama has fought al-Qaida just as ruthlessly as George W. Bush; if Romney is elected, he will surely drop his threats to start a trade war with China, just as Bush and Bill Clinton did.
There nevertheless are some big and bright differences in this election on foreign policy. More even than those on the economy, they are likely to have practical consequences within months of the election — since, for the most part, action by Congress won’t be necessary. Though the candidates don’t talk about them, they are easy enough to find in their position papers, or in Obama’s case, his first-term record.
Start with Russia. Never mind Romney’s much-reported claim that Russia is “our number one geopolitical foe,” or Obama’s oversold “reset” with Moscow. The significant difference is that if Obama is re-elected, he will seek to strike a new deal with Vladimir Putin to significantly cut the U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles. To do that, he acknowledged last March, he will have to compromise with Putin on U.S. and NATO plans for missile defense; in what he thought was a private aside, he told then-President Dmitry Medvedev that “after my election, I have more flexibility” on that.
Romney’s policy would be close to the opposite. In 2010, he strongly opposed Obama’s New Start treaty with Russia, which made a modest trim in nuclear warheads. Romney meanwhile has promised to boost spending on missile defense, which has been a pet GOP cause for three decades. So there’s one clear choice: less nukes, or more missile defense.
Next come U.S. military engagements, present and potentially future. Both Obama and Romney support NATO’s plan to withdraw combat forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, which has provoked some lazy commentary suggesting they don’t differ on the war. In fact, they likely disagree on an urgent question — whether American forces should be reduced next year. Obama is likely to order a cut; Romney has said he will follow the advice of U.S. generals, who will probably recommend that the post-September force of 68,000 be maintained through next year.
In Syria, Obama has repeatedly rejected proposals that the United States help establish safe zones for civilians or supply weapons to the rebels. But Romney has come out for arming the opposition. And what of Iran? Both men have indicated they would use force as a last resort to stop Tehran’s nuclear program. But there is a significant difference: While Obama has said he has “a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Romney said in Israel this summer that he would not tolerate an Iranian nuclear “capability.” In other words, Obama probably would use force only if Iran actually tried to build a bomb, while a Romney attack could be triggered if Iran were merely close to acquiring all the means for a weapon — which it is.
Last but not least comes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Obama came to office with a burning ambition to broker Palestinian statehood; that and the reduction of nuclear arms seem to be the foreign policy issues that engage him emotionally. The statehood push was one of the administration’s biggest busts, largely because of Obama’s own missteps, and during the election year it has been on hold. Yet it seems likely that a re-elected Obama will try again, notwithstanding his poor relations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Romney, in contrast, has made it clear that he, like George W. Bush in his first term, will put Palestinian statehood on a back burner.
To be sure, these differences may not mean as much to voters as the future of Medicare, or of the Supreme Court. But they do matter — which is why it’s a shame that neither campaign is talking about them.
Jackson Diehl is the Deputy Editorial Page Editor of The Washington Post.
Mitt Romney’s foriegn policy includes a stop off at the West Bank in Israel for a deposit to hide his money from US Taxes!
Why not point out that for his foreign policy advice Romney largely depends on the very same neocons who suckered George W. into his Iraq misadventure?
Obama’s policy is….hmmm..he has one other than
apologizing for the U.S.? Israel haters will be happy
to know he is throwing Israel under the bus..along
with his granny.
Obama’s foreign policy is to kill Osama Bin Laden and get us out stupid wars.
Obama has just let Iran know that the US will not support an attack by Israel in exchange for a promise not to hit US bases in the region he is trying to get from Iran.. Of course that will embolden Iran junking Obama’s own stated policy of no nuclear Iran.
The world just became more dangerous over the last few days.
Apparently BDN doesn’t like someone who’s seen this process close up so here I go again.
Romney’s foreign policy experience is being driven by the same people who provided George the 2nd with his, namely the flagwaver’s of the GOP who are all for US involvement but are loath to actually go themselves to put their money where their mouth is. And Ryan is right along side. Folk’s, someone needs to give the Romney folk’s a dose of reality. The Russian’s are still under the old regieme of Communism and that’s a fact no matter how much spin Putin puts on it. That they have to deal with an expanded NATO is also a fact that Putin is trying to deal with. Obama’s recent failure to support the missile defense system for Europe, by placing defensive missile’s in Poland, is one small sign that the old Soviet intimidation tactic is still alive and well. But don’t tell the Pole’s that since they told DC to hump itself and are well on their way toward their own missile defense. And so are the Israeli’s. They know better and have no compunction in telling DC to go jump on a rolling doughnut when it comes to their national survival. Their “Iron Dome” ABM system work’s and Israel isin’t bashful about telling the press they have it, and are prepared to use it if it comes down to that.
Iran’s continuing build up of both nuclear weapon’s and missile technology is not going to stop and both the Soviet’s and NATO know it. That NATO, politically, can’t get it’s keester in gear is nothing new. But NATO’s member’s military aren’t so shy. The British, the French, The German’s, The Dutch, The Italian’s and even The Turk’s are all building their air and missile defense’s for the day they all know is eventually coming. Even the Gulf State’s and the Saudi’s are now building up their missile defence system’s for the day that Iran goes nut’s and actually starts acting stupid. Even the Soviet’s are going to see, by the simple application of an overlay of Iranian missile range’s on a map of Europe, that Moscow is well within range of the Mullah’s in Tehran who just can’t stop playing with that ‘Little Red Key’. What Putin had better see even quicker is the nasty fact that the Chechin’s are more than willing to help Tehran if it helps them in their civil war with the Russian’s. And the Soviet’s defense’s are still questionable since the landing of Mathias Rust and his Cessna in front of the Kremlin not so long ago. The Soviet’s, and Obama, need to start asking themselves the inevitable question, that being is Tehran the bigger threat or is political saberrattling worth the eventual cost ? Time, people, is running out.
Your analysis is pretty good. Usually a viewpoint like yours would not support Obama… After all he has encouraged the Russians and Iranians with his actions, or lack thereof.
IE “Policy of Engagement” which cost us a year with Iran and the “Reset” with Russia. All Obama is good at is coming up with good names for his foreign policy.
You did forget China and their machinations in The South China Sea. The conflict with Iran helps them out as well. After all if they allow Iran to poke a stick in our eye… maybe we miss something in Asia.
Mathias Rust was 25 years ago.
A better example might be that most Soviet tanks/tracks that invaded Georgia had to be towed out of the country in disrepair when they withdrew.
As one who spent time in both a light and an mechanized infantry unit, and those of you who spent time in Gulf 1 & 2 and can attest, when mechanized unit’s are engaged as the Soviet’s were, maintenance is at best done on a where and when its safe basis. That the Soviet’s had to tow a large portion of their mech unit’s out shows how prolonged, and savage, the fighting was and still is.
And for those of you who bother to look, while the Soviet’s were required to dismantle a large portion of their bomber and sub fleet’s in compliance with the SALT Treaty, no where in SALT 1 or 2 did it require the Soviet’s to dismantle any armor unit’s rolling stock beyond their mobile ICBM Launcher’s. There are literally whole regions in Russia, full of older rolling armored vehicles being stored as a reserve that the Soviet’s still have. Unlike us here the Soviet’s never, ever toss anything away if it’s still in good running order or can be fixed quickly. And the Russian’s air defense system still has yet to be shown as improved over Rust’s flight. In fact, now that the Pole’s are literally on their border, it’s even easier, if one were so inclined, to get a running start. But no one in their right mind wants to roll those dice, especially since the Russian’s are so internally confused.
The Russians had to move out in a hurry. No combat involved. International agreement.
Tell that to the Guards Armored Division’s that fought there. Tell that to the remaining Iraqi’s that survived the retreat from Kuwait. Ask any remaining German veteran who managed to get out of Stalingrad before the end came. ‘Agreement’s’ don’t mean squat when you’re getting shot at.
I am talking about the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 when Russian vehicles performed so poorly and they had to be towed. Combat had ceased. NVM..
Then I would suggest you go talk to those folk’s who were trying to tow these same vehicle’s out while getting shot at. The Chechen’s still, to this day, are in a civil war with the Soviet’s, paper treaty notwithstanding. The Georgian’s are supplying them. Not nice and clean as the State Dept would like to make it out for pblic consumption, but then again, civil war’s are never neat and clean as they are made out to be. Has it calmed down ? To a degree but that doesn’t make it any less a civil war. And when an AK round or RPG rocket comes down range at you, I defy you to tell me that you’re not involved in a shooting war. And that is what Romney seems to have such a problem with. He has absolutely no idea or concept of what a shooting war consists of and that’s more than a little troubling.
To be fair, neither does Obama since neither has served. And George the 2nd’s time in the ANG, joyriding over Texas in a jet fighter, isin’t even close as a qualifier. Neither does Ryan. The only one that’s even close is Biden, as he had his son over there in the Delaware NG as a Company Commander. Not 1st hand I will concede. But at least he has had someone in his family there to understand the nastyness of what can happen when foreign policy is looked at and assumed as a some kind of academic puzzle to be solved. When foreign policy goes wrong, it goes REAL WRONG and there’s not a lot of time to analyze what went specifically wrong. Romney and Ryan just want to sit and think and never move forward, that I’ve seen to date. As it has been said, and is known by a lot of you out there that have served; Lead, follow or get outta’ the way. Anything else cost’s live’s. And that is something that both GOP Candidate’s just can’t seem to get their head’s around. Romney’s still sitting in the starting gate, with Ryan as his cheerleader, and we’re still waiting. Question is for how long and what’s the cost gonna be ? Smiling press conference’s do not make foreign policy and it’s high time that Mitt figured that out.
With Romney there would be less coordination with allies and increased Defense spending and additional wars. Exact opposite of what I’d like to see.