Last night's third and final debate between the candidates for president focused on foreign policy and provided a showcase of how much Obama and Romney are in agreement.
First and foremost, these debates are stage-managed PR events meant to promote the personality contest. (I tuned into CNN to watch the performance because I knew their pre- and post-debate analysis would be among the most exhausting. And they didn't disappoint. The substance of the analyses had little to do with substance.)
Obama's job was the easier of the two, merely having to review what he's done and what he's doing: ending the Iraq war, soon withdrawing from Afghanistan, killing bin Laden, and so on. Despite the confidence and projected sense of accomplishment, this administration's track record in the Middle East has been woeful. To pick three points:
1. The president last night correctly steered wide of the Palestine-Israel issue because he simply has done nothing on the subject. Israeli settlement expansion continues apace in the West Bank. Furthermore, the Palestinians get reminded by the administration that unilateral steps toward statehood at the UN are "extremely counterproductive" and get threatened with "significant negative consequences" should they continue (Guardian, Oct. 1).
2. The White House has avoided direct, sustained diplomatic options concerning Syria. Obama has chosen to instead exacerbate the situation there through regional allies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. This enflames the local conflict within Syria, the regional conflict between Syria's neighborhood allies and enemies, and the global conflict between the United States and those power players who have interests in protecting the Assad regime, such as Russia and China.
3. On Iran, President Obama's position is more rational than the rhetoric coming from the Romney camp and Israel. Nevertheless, the White House is merely continuing the time-honored tradition (since 1979) of treating Iran like a regional monster. Again, diplomacy could very likely produce results concerning Iran's cooperation and transparency with the IAEA; though it should be kept in mind that Iran is legally entitled to develop a civilian nuclear program. There is no evidence whatsoever that Tehran is moving toward weaponization. And the strict sanctions against Iran only harm the population, as is usually the case.
On these three points - and others, such as the drone program - the Obama White House's performance has been damaging, dangerous, and in keeping with a longstanding US posture in the Middle East.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, had his work cut out for him. From day one the governor has had to distinguish himself from Obama; no mean feat on account of the enormous similarities between the two (see Jun. 21 blog post for my essay on Romney and his stated Middle East agenda). In his endeavor to make himself appear radically different than the president, and suffering from what seems to be an all around lack of knowledge and understanding when it comes to foreign policy and international affairs, Romney has had a difficult time being consistent and/or accurate.
In the case of last night's debate, Romney was basically agreeable on most of the major points. When he differed with the president, it was only by a matter of degree: we need to do more concerning Syria or more concerning Iran - essentially saying nothing. Three points:
1. Iran is not four years closer to a nuclear weapon. As mentioned, there's no evidence of a nuclear program. His hysteria amounts to fear mongering and mistreating the American people.
2. Romney asserts the "Muslim world" (I presume the governor means the Arab world) needs to reject extremism. However, the Arab world does reject extremism. His assertion is nonsense and is either the product of political drama and/or lack of knowledge.
3. The military budget is too big, not too small. For a country that's been attacked twice - during the War of 1812 and on 9/11 - its $700 billion defense budget is difficult to take seriously - except that it should be taken quite seriously.
At the end of it, we no better know where Romney precisely stands than we did before, given his consistent state of flux. But when the governor's surface attempts to deviate from the president are filtered out, we get a rather Obamaesque and Bushesque picture.
