NY Times Editorial
Republicans and Foreign Policy
Published: October 17, 2011
For a while, we were concerned that the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination were not saying much about national security and foreign affairs. Now that a few have started, maybe they were better off before.
Certainly, the Republican hopefuls have put to rest any lingering notion that their party is the one to trust with the nation’s security. The United States is involved in two wars with more than 100,000 troops overseas. China is rising, relations with Pakistan are plummeting, Iran and North Korea are advancing their nuclear programs. The Middle East is in turmoil. Yet the candidates offer largely bad analysis and worse solutions, nothing that suggests real understanding or new ideas.
Some made weak attempts to resurrect Reagan-era ideas about American leadership that make no sense today. Accusing President Obama of being weak or refusing to lead is ludicrous when you consider all he has done to repair the damage his predecessor did to America’s standing in the world. Then there was that small matter of assassinating Osama bin Laden. The Republican hopefuls seem to know that their main talking point is to criticize Mr. Obama, but, when it comes to global affairs, they are not quite sure how or why.
How else to describe the answer from Gov. Rick Perry of Texas at a recent debate when asked what he would do if the Taliban took control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons? He jumbled up names and facts and ended up accusing Washington of refusing to sell F-16s to India, which actually had declined to buy the combat planes.
But even that was better than Herman Cain announcing that “a leader” does not need to know the names of people who run places like “Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan.” Mr. Cain should know President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. He is an autocrat with an appalling human rights record, and Uzbekistan is an important supply route for American forces in Afghanistan.
Recently, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman Jr. have delivered foreign policy speeches and issued white papers. But they are pretty thin, with few new ideas and many unanswered questions. Among Mr. Romney’s more specific proposals: increase defense spending to 4 percent of gross domestic product. Even if that were good policy, we’d like to know where Mr. Romney plans to get the money to pay for it.
Mr. Huntsman wants the troops out of Afghanistan quickly, and former Senator Rick Santorum advocates an aggressive push to win — whatever that means. Mr. Romney and Mr. Perry are somewhere in the muddled middle, with ambiguous statements that, so far, make it impossible to know when or even if they might withdraw troops.
Mr. Romney said proudly that he would consult the military commanders on Afghanistan — which is exactly what Mr. Obama did. Most Republican candidates support Israel and oppose Iran getting a nuclear weapon — without any good ideas for how to save the first and prevent the second. As for the use of military force, in a speech in August, Mr. Perry called for “taking the fight to the enemy, wherever they are, before they strike at home.” He also rejected “military adventurism.” So when exactly would he use military force? No one knows.
Would these candidates work with China or confront it? What must the United States do to ensure the Arab Spring leads to democratic change? Can relations with Pakistan be made productive? American voters deserve thoughtful answers. They’re not getting them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/opinion/republicans-and-foreign-policy.html?ref=opinion
DO SOMETHING!
| 