The October Surprise That Proves O'bama Is As Dangerous As A Rabid Rat


Selene

Recommended Posts

WSS,

I'm none too clear as to Mitt Romney's actual positions on a number of foreign policy issues, and I don't expect to be much clearer after this debate.

I do expect that there will be a lot in this debate about Libya, and that Barack Obama is unlikely to be able to rely on the moderator to bail him out.

As for the other talking points in the New York Times piece, I don't understand why any sensible person could expect the Khomeinite regime to negotiate in good faith on the issues under contention. It's like expecting any member of the Kim Dynasty to negotiate in good faith.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WSS,

I'm none too clear as to Mitt Romney's actual positions on a number of foreign policy issues, and I don't expect to be much clearer after this debate.

We kind of know what to expect from this moderator. He has a bit more gravitas than Candy, and the format is under his control -- meaning he can use the ten or so minutes not capped in the 2-minute initial statements to direct followups. I hope he has given some teeth to the murkish subject areas already defined.

How can any moderator get two determined men to get off Platitude Island? For my part, I think Romney and Obama will use the same tropes of strength, power, USA rah rah, responsibility, security -- it just goes on and on what can be said without coming down from the clouds. I expect very sharp exchanges over Benghazi/Libya/Obama weakness/shabby intel/WH overmassage and so on, but I think it may be undercut by a few forward-looking questions.

As for the Iran/October surprise, Romney will get burned if he brings that up, because on the surface there is not one thing in Romney's stated policy to separate his from official policy of the USA. If he is well-briefed, Romney will know the details of all the freaking acronyms, and be able to answer to his position of the success/failure/goals of the P5+1 talks, and the standing policy of 'engagement' carrot and stick, and IAEA, PKK, KYD, FJP, AKP and blabbity blah blah.

If he is as smart as his smartest advisors, he will remember that he is not speaking only to the US TV audience. He will adopt, if wise, a Presidential tone and carefully curb his remarks. Any unusual belligerence without content ("I will make more belligerent statements, and um, yeah, Israel") will mark him out as the awkward amateur he was in his abroad visits so far.

I wll be looking for anything that pertains to Syria and its travails. If the level of detail comes out on the Libya/Jihadi/Arms to Syria issue, I will be especially watchful for some money-where-mouth-is. By this, I mean, if Romney gives the least indication that he will really get belligerent with Assad -- and lay on some stingers and other Manpads -- then I will switch my hopes to a Romney win.

Realisticly, the US ship of state does no quick turns. It travels on a generational-time mission. One aspect of the Bush Doctrine (a deliberate US involvement in 'Freedom' from tyranny in the Middle East) directly contributed to the Arab Spring, and it continued in modified form under Clinton. So, will Romney actually (once in the pilot seat) start pushing thrust and swinging the wheel? Will Iran suddenly get all weak at the knees from mere words? Will Romney commit his own energies to intensely, personally manage the Iran file?

Will Romney contribute to the downfall of Assad, really? I just do not yet see him doing anything different, and certainly not in the first week or month of his Administration. American action will be in Obama's hands meanwhile. What happens in the world during a lame-duck season?

I hope Romney can navigate the minefields surrounding Republican policies, whether Afghanistan or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Bahrain or Kuwait or Iraq or Libya. If he has his own, great, hope he can clearly articulate them. US voters will make a decision. the watching world can only wait/hope/fear.

I do expect that there will be a lot in this debate about Libya, and that Barack Obama is unlikely to be able to rely on the moderator to bail him out.

Yeah. But it looks like a full half hour will be devoted to 'the new face of terrorism.' I am trying to think of what I would hope both men would demonstrate: a sophisticated understanding, not just talking points and campaign sludge.

On China, the only thing I get from Romney is Tough Talk. He will declare China a currency manipulator. Then what? What else? What does he want with China? Is China as much an enemy as his declared Number One Adversary, Russia?

Will there be any tough questions for broader US policy: Why does the US have a firm ally in oppressive religious autocracies (ie, UAE minus Qatar, Saudi)? I don't think either candidate will be able to say anything coherent or convincing about Freedom/Liberty/Yadda while in bed with the royals, emirs and strict fundamentalists. This bizarre hypocrisy rises from the a-realism of the Bush Doctrine as it pertains to 'friends,' but is embedded in both parties over-arching security-first stance.

In other words, both men will have to defend an incoherent mess of Middle East policies going back fifty years and more if they want to stress American principles of justice and individual freedom and opportunity.

As for the other talking points in the New York Times piece, I don't understand why any sensible person could expect the Khomeinite regime to negotiate in good faith on the issues under contention. It's like expecting any member of the Kim Dynasty to negotiate in good faith.

Both men have exactly the same policies in re Iran save for the wrapping paper. I do not think Romney has much more than a 'talk tough' knob to turn. In the end, I am pretty ignorant about the importance of foreign policy to those who will vote. It may be that enough undecided voters will like the 'body language' and 'tone' of one or the other candidate. Will voters be swayed by rhetoric, splendid rhetoric, and if so, to which side? If the taint of Bush militarism can be applied to Romney, it might smell good to just enough stunned undecideds to push him ahead in the battleground states.

I do wonder how we can assess the competence of the two in this area, how to assess the assessments of the voters. I expect purely sectarian reactions (Fox: Romney Wins Big!, MSNBC: Obama Crushes Magic Pants!) and then a hurricane of spin spin spin.

Do you have any pointed questions you would like answered of both men, Robert?

-- I should mention that the most ironic part of present Objectivish Romney supporters is that they previously considered him dogs-breakfast Republican junk.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, I am pretty ignorant about the importance of foreign policy to those who will vote.

WSS,

I don't think it's uppermost in the minds of the vast preponderance.

The condition of the economy is the biggest deal. Hence the endless efforts, among the Obami, to change the subject. (And the periodic compliant stupidity of Republicans who have done it for them.)

The Benghazi attack stands out from everything else on the foreign policy front, and not just because it gives the lie to the Obaman proclamation that Al Qa'eda has forever been vanquished. The Obama administration's manner of handling it is shaping up into a Watergate-style scandal, where the cover-up turns out to be worse than the original offense, and a great many of the President's men and women may be seeing their political careers come to an end.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now