GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, with the Veterans of Foreign Wars (Justin Sullivan, Getty) |
But first he started with the standard chest thumping: "I am an unapologetic believer in the greatness of America. . ." Nope. We cannot have a complicated perspective on the role of the US in the world. It can't be that just maybe, our country has been a force for both good and ill. Gotta simplify. Recognizing complexity robs us of, well, the ability to say things like "I'm an unapologetic believer. . ." We've got to stay as far away as we can from those terrible days of the Church hearings in the 1970s that exposed covert operations ending nascent democracies in Iran and Guatemala, attempts to assassinate Castro among others, all that crap that made us feel bad about ourselves and led to President Carter's quirky human rights emphasis, and his infamous malaise. And we can't do the introspective thing because even as we lecture other countries on human rights and democracy we are again engaged in widespread covert operations and assassinations, though the latter we can now do with drones (never mind the civilians we take out along with the bad guys).
But this is under Obama's watch, and he has continued with many key aspects of President Bush's "war on terror" (for example, Bush-era detainment, torture, and targeted killing policies). So what's Romney to do? The Obama administration has shown a tough side in its foreign policy, and Romney can't do the usual Republican move of calling Democrats wimps in world affairs. In 2004, VP Cheney warned Americans that a vote for Kerry would likely mean another 9/11. Romney didn't play such a dire fear card, but told the audience that impending cuts in defense would mean the US would no longer be the strongest nation on the earth. A vote for Obama means, somehow, a quick slide into a second rate power, no matter that we currently outspend the next twelve countries combined on our military. A vote for Obama means national insecurity. It's an old, very old, and tired line. But I suppose it works--if you can forget that these defense cuts had bipartisan support-- because it will get a rise out of those who think the response to a foreign policy challenge is, if you can't safely ignore it, then shoot it (e.g. not just an anti-illicit drug policy but a war on drugs; not just an immigration policy, but militarize the border).
The other just really awful problem with the Obama administration according to Romney is the leakage, apparently out of the White House. Yes, like such leaks are unprecedented, as if no administration until now has tried to make political hay out of foreign policy achievements--but this is about pushing the fear button again, because, Romney asserted, by divulging aspects of covert operations, these leaks put our soldiers at risk now and in the future. It's a "national security crisis," it's "contemptible," it "betrays our national interest."
It seems a little desperate to imply that Obama has been treasonous, but Romney had to do something to tarnish the covert op that gave Obama a boost in popularity, the assassination of Osama bin Laden. So Romney kvetched about a high profile extra-judicial killing, not because our hands are bloodied, not because it's part of a much larger campaign of dubious legality and utility, inflicting more "collateral damage" than we care to realize, but because details of the operation got out. It's not like I think Romney should high-five Obama for taking bin Laden out. But it would be good to see him pull at his finely crafted hair, anxious about the murky moral landscape we're in now, or have been in for some time. I'd like to see more of all of us do that.
Aftermath of drone strike in Buner, Pakistan, 2009 (from Council on Foreign Relations website) |
I know. It's a presidential campaign, and candidates must exude confidence rather than anxiety. Thus Romney declared "This century must be an American Century." It is our "destiny." But this secular providentialism is also very old, and tired. Why not invoke the spirit of his GOP ancestor, Lincoln, and warn against self-righteousness, announce his own version of ". . .with malice toward none, with charity for all. . ?" But I don't expect it, not from Obama either. Instead, we'll probably get an echo of the plaintive words of another more recent Republican president: "Why do they hate us?"
The National Review has provided a transcript of the entire speech here.
No comments:
Post a Comment