Thoughts On the National Security and Foreign Policy Visions of Mitt Romney and President Obama…

Less than five months from the 2012 Presidential Election it’s of significant value to begin paying closer attention to the actual details behind both candidates’ respective approaches to the biggest issues facing our nation. Despite not being the most talked about issue of this election cycle, the positions taken by both on foreign policy, national security and defense spending should be highly scrutinized given the vast amounts of life and treasure spent defending and securing the nation since the 2001 launch of the War on Terror.

Eleven years after 9/11, the choice made by Americans at the polls this year will dictate whether there is a neo-conservative revival cloaked in a call for an “American Century”, or whether a complete winding down of the ground wars and a heightened focus on coordinated special intelligence and targeted attacks on terrorist organizations around the world continues to take shape. This critical choice will determine whether our country pursues policies that appear to be adversarial, with a Cold War-era tone, or whether there is a continuing focus on strengthening alliances (such as the NATO effort that saw helped facilitate the overthrow of Gadhafi) through reasoned diplomacy and a common purpose of de-escalating tensions worldwide.

A dissection of the rhetoric and records of both Romney and Obama tells the story of two candidates, one who currently sits in the hot seat, has made the tough calls when the stakes were at their highest (Bin Laden raid), and seen the intelligence reports, while the other has surrounded himself with many of the same actors who drove the policies known as the “Bush Doctrine.” For example, Romney’s website lists as his special advisors the likes of Michael Chertoff, the former United States Secretary of Homeland Security under W. Bush, former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden, and Walid Phares, former Director of the Task Force for Future Terrorism at the Department of Homeland Security again under W. Bush. Bottom line, a vote for Romney appears to be a vote to double down on the neo-conservative policies advocated from 2000-2008.

President Obama’s team offers a stark contrast to Romney’s, as well as a vastly different vision for the role of the United States security apparatus overseas and at home. Led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Obama’s national security team has taken targeted anti-terrorism to a whole new level. At the time of this article, only one senior Al Qaeda official remains breathing, and his days look numbered. The Iraq War is over, and troops have begun coming home from Afghanistan. The President’s narrative offers goals such as “common security", "common humanity", and remaining "a beacon of freedom and justice for the world.” There is a focus on promoting peace and security in the Middle East and preserving America’s commitment to the security of Israel.

Romney’s campaign paints a dark portrayal of a world that harps on Cold War fears and a view that Obama seeks to “Hollow” out the United States Military. In reality, no matter what Romney says on his website, it’s simply misleading and disingenuous to say that re-electing the President means “a weak America, an America in decline, an America that retreats from its responsibilities, would usher in an era of uncertainty and danger.” To the contrary, it is likely that terrorist around the world have received the message that Obama will not hesitate to send a drone their way to eradicate the world from threats to our nation and our allies. An honest analysis of Romney’s national defense strategy reveals that he would really do nothing different than W. Bush, and that fear of a straw man version of Obama drives much of the rhetoric spouted by him and his campaign.

Lines such as “President Obama has repeatedly sought to slash funds for our fighting men and women” are simply misrepresentations that make our country less safe and do not reflect the reality of how powerful the United States Military truly is. Frankly, given the bloated defense budget (seven times that of China, and more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined), the argument that our military has weakened over the past three years is simply ludacris. (Defense budget was $530.1 billion in 2010, $549.1 billion in 2011, and estimated to be $553.0 billion for 2012). We should all agree that there are intelligent ways to maintain the greatest fighting force on earth while getting rid of excess spending that further exasperates concerns over the federal debt and balancing our budgets.

In addition, there is simply no need to expand the size of the military unless we plan on engaging in yet another ground war like we saw in Iraq. Any new war mongering at this point should be received with great skepticism and a dose of real concern for the sustainability of our troops both mentally and physically. Does anyone truly have the appetite for war with multiple nations in the name of ending an Iranian nuclear program that has no chance of succeeding to build bombs while under the intense scrutiny and surveillance of the United States and its allies? The GOP seems to have that very vision in mind, in fact Romney’s national security platform reads like a Tom Clancy novel that should concern even the biggest supporters of our military and intelligence endeavors. Do we really want to return to pre-emptive war and isolationism? Do we want to continue building alliances or return to bullying our way through disputes while giving our enemies more mental ammunition to build anti-American terror networks?

Thus, much is at stake this November in addition to jobs and recovering from the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The foreign policy visions of the candidates tell the story of two different futures for America’s military, and before voting, it is advisable that each one of us educate ourselves and those around us so that we as a nation can understand the ramifications of our collective choice for President. We should each take a hard look at the promises made by the President in 2008, and take a look at the Romney’s plans to revert back to pre-Obama policies. We should look at the tone of the rhetoric from both sides, and compare that rhetoric to the actual facts, look at the defense budget, and also look at how large and capable our military already is. The time has come for us all to look deeper than the pundits on FOX News, CNN, or MSNBC and to begin vetting the candidates without the media filter and based on the real effects of the candidates’ respective positions. National security is a good place as any to begin this important process.

Thoughts on whether Karl Rove will be Romney’s Sarah Palin…

He will not appear on the Republican ticket or speak at the GOP Convention, yet his impact on the 2012 race for President of the United States has already been felt. He has skillfully navigated the post Citizens United landscape, helping to push the Tea Party into Congress. He is currently helping to pour millions of dollars into negative ads attacking President Barack Obama in swing states. He has attempted to depict Obama as an outsider, a celebrity, and distorted and twisted the President’s record/persona in order to get his messages across to key voting blocks. His and all other Super PACs are legally bound not to have any coordination with a candidate’s campaign, but it would be naïve not to see the many ways in which the new rules can be skirted (See Newt Gingrich on stage at campaign event with his sugar daddy). He is Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s former Deputy Chief of Staff, and his American Crossroads Super PAC cohorts are in the business of throwing political hand grenades.

Although Mitt Romney has not yet selected a running mate, he can rest assured that regardless of his pick the same kinds of inciting statements made to Republican crowds by the likes of Sarah Palin during the 2008 election (at the dismay of the McCain campaign) will be made by groups such as American Crossroads via the air and radio waves and the Crossroads GPS field campaign. Unfortunately for Romney, no matter how much he spends on ads, he will have never truly have control over the conservative message during this election season.

Much like Senator John McCain never had control over Palin’s crowds during the heavy campaign season,, Romney will also have little to no control over Super PACs like American Crossroads. No matter how hard Romney tries to keep things positive or on an economic message, he will constantly be walking back ads that Rove’s group has put out. There is no way he can stop it, so he will either have to embrace it or suffer the same fate as McCain.

It's also notable that McCain was never truly in with the starkest conservatives, and neither is Mitt Romney. Romney, like McCain, is not a big draw, he is not exciting, and he doesn’t give a great speech. Like McCain, Romney was the settled-upon candidate. He is not Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or even Marco Rubio. Yet, because of the ill-fated Palin experience, and because FOX News is a defacto GOP network with Karl Rove as an active talking head, Romney will have to walk a fine line by either picking a name that draws ratings or by trying to play it safe with a lesser-known that he can consistently overshadow and keep on message.

He can go with a big name and risk being Palin’d, or he can go with a low profile pick and risk being overshadowed by Super PAC messaging because the ticket is just too boring. Either way, Romney will eventually run into messaging issues. His VP choice will no doubt be difficult, but the end result may be the same regardless of whether the pick is Marco Rubio or Rob Portman. The more outrageous Super PAC messages will always draw bigger ratings on FOX and Rush Limbaugh than will play-it-safe Romney campaign ads, and the Super PAC nonsense makes for bigger headlines with opposition groups. There is simply nothing Romney can do to stop this phenomenon under the current rules.

The conservatives running American Crossroads are not, and never have been or will be true Romney Republicans. Sure, they want to beat Obama, but this group is for the most part composed of ex-Bush aides and veterans of the neo conservative movement who are trying to stay relevant by pursuing the same divisive political messaging that drove the Bush/Cheney to two terms in the White House. They play on religion, they entice the birthers, they are the brains behind the new Tea Party movement, but they are certainly not Massachusetts moderates. They are the same people who trashed McCain in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and both Obama and Romney in 2008.

Karl Rove and company have Romney cornered, because unlike the Democratic Party, the Republican establishment does not have a recognizable uniting voice or platform (not liking the President is not a platform!). There is no Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, and Bush is currently a bad word on the Romney campaign. There simply exists a fractured GOP composed of factions representing different eras of conservatism leaning on an aging Reagan-era base in danger of disappearing if it does not begin to appeal to the changing face of modern America.

This lack of unification, coupled with the Citizens United decision, has opened the door for candidates to be at the mercy of the Super PAC if they are not themselves an intriguing presence. As far as Karl Rove and American Crossroads go, they have harnessed the potential of having the same negative impact or greater on the Romney campaign as did the unchecked rhetoric of Sarah Palin that haunted the McCain camp with independent voters in 2008.

The bottom line is that Mitt Romney cannot control Karl Rove even if Rove is trying to help him win. Because Romney will be outspent by Super PACs in an inter-party battle to define the key issues of this election, the Rove message will inevitably become part of the Romney message. Sure it’s still early, but it’s definitely not a stretch to say that Rove will end up having a Palin-like effect on Romney’s bid this November. Maybe Rove can help Romney fire up a segment of the conservative base that Romney cannot reach, but in the end, Rove’s push to fire up the Republican on dated social issues, along with his desperate attempts to create a straw man version of Barack Obama, could seriously backfire for Romney with undecided voters seeking to further distance this country from Bush-era practices and policies. Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, the money is in the bank and continues to flow to Karl Rove’s and other similar groups, their ads are already hitting the tubes, and the end results will be telling of the true effect of Citizens United on those who fiercely advocated for the Super PAC system.

Thoughts on disasters, the 24-hour news cycle, and unrealistic expectations…

In light of the tragic BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, there is once again an expectation amongst many Americans that a disaster of this magnitude can be fixed on demand within the framework of media talking points. The media is increasingly guilty of dramatizing events which will garner ratings, many times at the expense of the true story on the ground. Some anchors continually look for out of context sound bites and headlines that invoke our worst fears and divisive partisan opinion. To feed a hungry 24 hour news cycle, the press today has no choice but to dig for every angle, whether factual or prophetic, in order to satisfy the needy “hear what we want to, not what we need to” segment of our population.

Take for example the reporting by the major news networks over the past weeks of the oil spill: despite the common knowledge that BP was not truthful as it relates to the nature of the leak, the media is acting as if they knew the extent of the disaster when it first occurred. Next, these news anchors, talk show hosts, and partisan politicians who are swayed heavily by media reports and not researched facts, begin to spread blame along various chains of command and agencies that, while they obviously care deeply about fixing the disaster at hand, were unable to properly respond because of BP’s initial, lobbyist and public relations ridden attempts to cover up the true enormity of the pipe breach.

Unlike Hurricane Katrina, where the scope of the disaster was evident upon the breach of the levees, this disaster occurred nearly a mile below the shore, with technology to monitor the leak provided by the very people responsible. Until the oil became clearly visible from Satellite imagery, and estimates as to the scope of the leak where attained, it was virtually impossible for the US Government to put a plan into action that was based on the tangible, truthful, calculation of the extent of the spill. In addition, President Obama has expressed a sense of urgency and engagement that was absent in President Bush’s response to the flooding as a result of the failure of the Army Corps of Engineers to properly construct the levee system above the city of New Orleans.

With light speed internet sites like Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, and major news sites facilitating rumors and opinion at the expense of realistic, fact based schools of thought; it has become increasingly difficult to translate the pace of responsible decision making to the 24 hour news cycle. A thought out decision must include good information that facilitates a proper response. Until BP accepted the ramifications of its transgressions, there was no good way to know what kind of disaster to expect. The fact that it was not until today that the estimate of the size of the spill was revealed, it should not surprise people that there were mistakes and oversights in the Federal Government’s handling of the situation. The prevalent media talking point, that this disaster could have been handled well with such a broken system at the MMS and lack of candor from BP, is clearly a product of the unrealistic expectations.

Thoughts on the impact of today’s taking out of Al Qaeda in Iraq leaders by US/Iraqi security forces…

Seven years after the start of the Iraq War, the light at the end of the tunnel is becoming increasingly visible to American Troops, the Iraqi people, and the families on both sides of the conflict. As the Sons of Iraq (SOI) and the Iraqi Defense Ministry (IDM) gradually assume control of their nation’s security, the elimination of the foreign born terrorist threats from Al Qaeda and other fringe groups will be one of their biggest long term hurdles. Because of a vested interest in their failure by Iranian authorities, as well as other anti-west nation states, the SOI and IDM are likely to encounter constant challenges from groups looking to capitalize on a perceived power vacuum. Ultimately, the fate of the Iraqi people will lie in their desire to unite as a country and bridge their very own complicated divides.

The gunning down of Al-Masri and Al-Baghdadi is an important achievement in the path towards potential stability in Iraq. Both men were directly tied to Osama Bin Laden, and Al-Masri was an import from Egypt whose death exposed high level correspondence which may provide the vital leads we have been missing in the hunt for top Al Qaeda leadership. Al Qaeda in Iraq was created by outsiders after the beginning of the war, and the elimination of this primarily external threat could provide the SOI and IDM with the empowerment necessary to secure the Iraqi population. Their counter-terror training, along with their side by side teamwork with members of the US Military, will allow them to effectively decipher future threats to their country.

As we draw down our troop presence, we must be mindful of the difficult journey taken by so many to reach this point. When President Bush declared “Bring em’ on,” little did he know that his fiery rhetoric would lead disenfranchised Iraqi’s to take up arms against our mission as liberators, and little did he know that an Al Qaeda presence, which didn’t exist previously, would be created to capitalize on his words and an increasingly susceptible population of former Iraqi Republican Guardsmen and Baath Party Members. Coupled with an influx of radical Islamic and anti-western clerics, the recipe for what transpired over the past decade became apparent to everyone who was watching closely.

Under the Obama Administration, and during the post-Surge era of the Bush Presidency, there has been a concerted effort to unify the Iraqi population and to bring in all religions/sects into the emerging political structure. By empowering all Iraqi’s to have a stake in their own futures, we can help them plant the seeds of a prosperous economic future and successfully transition into an era of partnership with a freely elected, all inclusive Iraqi Government. Today’s eradication of these leaders was a big step amongst many taken and needed, but much work is left to be done between now and the planned exit of American forces later this year.

Thoughts on President Obama's proposed offshore drilling plan...

Today, the President announced a controversial plan to raise offshore drilling bans on previously untouchable areas off the eastern US coast, from Virginia south to just north of Florida, northern Alaska, and the southeastern Gulf of Mexico; thus opening the door to bidders from the American oil and natural gas industry. This action should come as no surprise to those who followed Obama on the campaign trail in 2008. He stated, as a candidate, that he would take a hard look at reasonable ways to increase our domestic oil and natural gas supply while also taking into account the need to protect environmentally vulnerable areas, such as Alaska’s Bristol Bay and the numerous protected areas lining America’s west coast.

This decision is by no means apolitical, and the usual suspects have already begun to take their shots at the President’s drilling proposal. Critics from both sides of the aisle, such as House Minority Leader John Boehner, who stated “keeping the Pacific Coast and Alaska, as well as the most promising resources off the Gulf of Mexico, under lock and key makes no sense at a time when gasoline prices are rising and Americans are asking 'Where are the jobs?,” and environmentalists, opposed to any new drilling whatsoever, were quick to jump on the President’s decision. These left and right reactions act as further proof that Obama is governing primarily down the center of the political spectrum. The White House has called this kind of decision making “principled post partisanship”, largely basing their decisions on pragmatism, as opposed to party politics and short term gain.

Though the decision to increase drilling at home may be pragmatic, given that we unquestionably need to transition from foreign energy sources to domestic and alternative ones, this move was ultimately a strategic political concession made to appease conservatives in Congress in the name of the bigger picture. In order for Obama to gain broader bi-partisan support for the administrations larger agenda on energy reform, the Administration decided to go ahead with portions of the offshore drilling ban initially proposed by the George W. Bush Administration in 2008.

The difference in approach by the two Presidents’ is something that many environmentalists need to take note of. Obama, as opposed to Bush’s plan to use Bristol Bay as a drilling area, put the bay and other sensitive areas onto the list of forbidden places to drill. In addition, the plan also requires drilling to be at least 125 miles offshore from Florida, out of the view of those enjoying the coastline. In the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the plan is to drill near areas where platforms already exist, and to expand towards the southeast, not towards the western Florida coast. Governors in eastern states, such as Virginia and North Carolina, obviously aren’t excited by the prospect of oil rigs off their shores, but they do, for the most part, recognize the need to bring energy reform and independence to the forefront.

The Presidents broader point is this; as we now produce only 2% of the world’s oil supply, while we use approximately 25% of the global supply for our energy needs, it is in our best interest to harness domestic oil and natural gas as we develop new ways to power our grid and our cars. The imminent transition to clean energy will require a period of change where we wane off foreign suppliers in favor of domestic sources. Though in the short term there is the unfortunate chance of spills and harm to wildlife, there is no other way forward in the long term. The alternative is continued importation from nations in tense, war torn regions abroad. Given the entrenched views on the subject of environmental responsibility, inevitably, this is set to spur another fierce debate with a plethora of faces and arguments for and against it.

Liberal coastal populations will most likely be against this plan, but this opposition is to be expected. Republicans will have to decide whether they are going to behave in a bi-partisan manner, and join in on a policy change they have traditionally supported, or to continue the strategy of opposing every policy proposed by the Obama Administration. Democrats and Independents will need to look to the long term plan for comfort, as the prospect of offshore drilling and environmental impact is a hard pill for any environmentally conscious individual to swallow. None of these strategic decisions will be clean or without drama, and we should expect nothing less.

But, if we are to ultimately become an energy independent nation, this decision may be the crucial second step, along with increased focus on nuclear energy announced earlier this year, in a series of policy changes leading towards the larger goal of self-reliance. More steps will obviously be necessary, and the debate will probably get personal and heated, but as the national conversation pivots towards the future of the climate and energy, we will likely look back to these first two Obama decisions as crucial turning points in the long term pursuit of an energy independent America.

Thoughts on war and the domestic agenda of the United States…

Upon analysis of the proposed budget for fiscal year 2011, it has become obvious that the priorities of the United States are in great jeopardy due to massive debt incurred from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only have over 4,000 servicemen (including my first cousin) and women died in the war on terror, but over 30,000 will return home with life altering battle wounds. In addition, billions in taxpayer dollars have disappeared due to mismanagement by hired contractors, overpayment to companies like Halliburton, and corruption by those who are responsible with using these funds appropriately as directed.

Unfortunately for taxpayers, the war debt created by the Bush Administration has now come due, and with heavy interest. This year alone, it is estimated that US taxpayers will foot a bill of nearly 200 billion dollars for debt incurred over the past decade. Our military budget is 1.2 Trillion dollars this year, and the fact that war spending was billed as a separate budget entity under President Bush, only recently to be included in the full budget, demonstrates the degree to which fiscal irresponsibility was ignored in the name of fighting the “axis of evil” abroad.

The Obama Administration, despite escalating troop levels to finish the fight in Afghanistan, has already begun to reign in wasteful defense spending. Not because they intend to back down to outside threats, but because the cost of waging war for nine years has taken a critical toll on the domestic agenda here at home. Programs such as Social Security and Medicare are at risk because we are spending nearly $10 billion a month fighting overseas. To date, the Iraq War has cost over $740 billion. In comparison, Afghanistan, the true stomping grounds of the 9/11 planners, has cost a mere $260 billion or one-third of Iraq. In all, over one trillion dollars have been spent on anti-terror based operations, and only now are we truly focused on finishing the job of dusting off the Taliban and capturing Al Qaeda leadership.

In stark contrast, W. Bush’s father was able to wage the first Gulf War at a total cost of $62 billion, including returning our troops home to safety upon completion of the mission. W, as opposed to his father, declared victory, but then chose to extend the conflict into an ambitious nation building operation. This decision was made with budgeting practices which ignored the long term viability of such an action. As the price of the War in Iraq skyrocketed, it became apparent that defense spending was spiraling out of control. Thus, the Bush Administration told the Pentagon to scrap unnecessary projects, such as a new fleet of Presidential helicopters, in a shallow attempt to appear frugal.

With defense spending dominating budgetary matters, the mainland American public was suffering dire economic consequences. From unregulated banks, Wall Street greed, and an exploding housing bubble, there is no denying that fighting two wars, while largely ignoring the home front, ultimately led us to near chaos in late 2008. While it cost taxpayers over $390,000 to deploy a solider abroad, middle class and lower income families saw their wages remain stagnant amidst inflation in healthcare costs and gas prices that peaked near $6 dollars a gallon at the height of the Iraq War.

In a sense, our country has not only lent its heart, soul, and children to fight these wars, we’ve sacrificed a decade worth of monetary progress to avenge a savage act on our soil. To debate the necessity of the Iraq War is futile; as it is coming to an end as you read this, but there is no doubt that the American people are less well off because of the irresponsible manner in which it was conducted. Our reputation abroad was damaged because of holes in the game plan, and the proximity of the conflict to Iran and Israel has allowed tensions to reach a boil. This brewing conflict took center stage, while our education, healthcare, and immigration systems required attention that was not being given to them.

Now is the time for us to focus on the problems that are right under our noses. President Obama has begun to draw down the troop levels in Iraq, diverting additional resources to the fight in Afghanistan, and setting his sights on 9/11 and Al Qaeda. The eventual return of a majority of our armed forces to the mainland will have a dramatic effect on the morale of the country, and aid in our ability to handle tough domestic issues. Going forward, it will be vital to refocus on building an America that is ready to lead both militarily and intellectually in the 21st century.

We need to become a healthier nation from a mental standpoint, and we need to reevaluate what kind of country we want to be going forward. Are we to be defined by our wars or by our ideas? Are we going to be a nation that fears the future, or relishes it? These questions are important to think about as we witness new foreign and domestic policies begin to take form. It will be in the vested interest of all Americans to take note of the impact of a less confrontational world view on our perception abroad, as well as the effects of having an extra $10 billion per month to use for domestic purposes.

Though in the end these wars we have waged are but a blip in the violent history of the world, we must realize that this is our time to regroup as a nation. The decisions that are made by our leaders going forward will ultimately define all of our futures. For this reason, we must all agree that no matter what our petty differences may be, our common needs do not change because we are at war. It is because of this fact that future wars must be fought within the realm of financial reason. Ultimately, we cannot afford to fight preemptively if it means bankrupting our nation again. The time has come to take note of what has happened to us, and to avoid repeating history in the future.

Addendum I: Effects of ending the War in Iraq: The successful return home of the brave soldiers stationed in Iraq should have short term positive boost on the morale of the entire nation. It will be our responsibility to help our biggest patriots mesh into the non-war world. We have to remember that this has been the longest War we have fought in several lifetimes, so it will be difficult even for the strongest minded of our troops to adapt to the calmness of daily life in America. In addition, a decline in tension between the US and Iran may be possible some time down the road given that much of the current day paranoia expressed by the President of Iran is due to our proximity to their border and their fear of American imperialism. Finally, world markets should welcome the renewed flow of billions more in domestic spending to renew the American economy, leaving the potential for a late 90's type boom.