Mitt Romeny's foreign policy advisors are from the same group of advisors which led the United States into war in Iraq. The primary point of neo-conservative foreign policy is to build military capability beyond challenge, but that level of military spending is unsustainable considering our current budget deficits. It is an arms race against the world.
-----------------------
-----------------------
Maureen Dowd recently wrote a column about the Republican
Presidential campaign and its advisors for foreign policy in the Mid-east. Dowd received criticism for what some
considered an anti-Semitic bias in her comments, and support from others who
saw no bias.
For my part, I think she was on-target. Foreign policy under a Romney administration
would be directed by the same group of Neo-conservatives that guided the Bush
administration into Iraq. I recall the
Neoconservative vision that the Iraq war would cost less than $50 billion, and
that pro-American democracy would spread from Iraq throughout the Middle-east. You
might say it’s funny how that worked out.
The total cost of the war in Iraq to Americans is now
estimated at over $3 trillion (not including costs to other nations, including
Iraq). As for the spread of pro-American
democracy in the Mid-east, you can judge for yourself based upon recent events.
------
Let’s look at Neo-Conservative thinking with regard to
foreign policy.
Neo-conservative foreign policy is based on the idea that
America is the world’s sole superpower, and should remain the world’s sole
superpower. The ideology is expressed as
the “Bush Doctrine”, which is considered synonymous with Neo-conservative
foreign policy.
There are four points to the doctrine.
1) America should
keep a military capability beyond challenge in the world. Neo-conservatives believe that other
countries will recognize America’s power as benign. They believe that weaker countries will choose
to align themselves with the United States, rather than opposing America’s
military power.
2) America holds the
right to use pre-emptive (first-strike) military force, as considered necessary.
3) America will
choose to act unilaterally as needed, bypassing the United Nations, bypassing
the process of building an international consensus, and ignoring the opinion of
the international community with regard to military action.
4) America should
promote democracy globally. This facet
of the policy was considered particularly important in the Islamic world, where
democracy was considered a crucial element in combating terrorism. Neo-conservatives believe that promoting
democracy, by force if necessary, will create a safer and more pro-American
world.
[Primary Source: The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War; http://www.aup.edu/pdf/WPSeries/AUP_wp61-WilliamsSchmidt.pdf]
[Primary Source: The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War; http://www.aup.edu/pdf/WPSeries/AUP_wp61-WilliamsSchmidt.pdf]
The Neo-Conservative world-view ignores the realities of human psychology, the rights of other nations to
self-determination, and the costs of carrying out this vision.
In considering a superpower with a commitment to pre-emptive
military force and unilateral action, weaker nations are unlikely to consider
America’s power as benign. The Bush
Doctrine creates fear, and provides every motivation to develop or acquire
nuclear weapons, which may be the only weapons which could deter an American
attack. Thus every nation which might be
potentially in opposition to the United States is motivated to build the
greatest military capability as possible.
Further, neo-conservatives never considered the possibility that
emergent democracies might be in greater opposition to America than the preceding
dictatorships.
America’s military spending amounts to nearly 5% of annual
GDP. Our annual military spending is
greater than military spending by China, Russia, Britain, France, Japan, Saudi
Arabia, India, Germany, Brazil, combined (after adjustments for purchasing
power). In fact, America’s annual
military spending exceeds the GDP of all but the top 18 nations on earth, at a
time when we are running budget deficits which threaten to bankrupt the
country.
Foreign policy under Mitt Romney as president would
implement the same principles as foreign policy of the Bush presidency. It would be directed by some of the same
people who were involved in the Bush presidency. And it would be informed by the same naïve beliefs
that caused America to fail to distinguish between the secular, dictatorial
government of Saddam Hussein with the theocratic religious fanatics of Al Qaeda.
The recent events in Libya, and the responses by the
presidential candidates provide a clear example of what can be expected from
each candidate in the event of international crisis. President Obama’s slow, careful, measured
response produced the most meaningful results: Libyans themselves stormed the
headquarters of the Islamist militias who killed the American ambassador. Which is a more effective foreign policy than
another American invasion.
-------
References:
References:
I found criticism of the Neo-conservatives similar to Dowd’s piece in various places. The Neo-conservative viewpoint is rooted in an arrogant idea of American infallibility, and American global military supremacy that we simply cannot afford. Specific to the Mid-east, the Neo-conservative view supports the idea of Greater Israel. Some suggest that we went to war in Iraq, not because Iraq posed a threat to the United States, but because Iraq posed a threat to Israel.
Views similar to Maureen Dowd’s can be found here:
Iraq: A War for Israel; Mark Weber, Institute for Historical Review,
The Real Reason for the Iraq War; Lee Whitnum, author & congressional candidate
The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War;
Cost of Iraq War; Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, Washington Post
Comparison of Obama's and Romney's response in regard to the crisis in Libya is found here.
No comments:
Post a Comment