Soccer Dad

Global warming vs. global jihad

The Washington Post reports in Obama and Romney lay out positions on Iraq and Beyond that presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney have laid out their foreign policies in an upcoming issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.

Sen. Obama's views are described

In his article, Obama cites Democratic icons Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman and John F. Kennedy as leaders who managed in "moments of great peril . . . both to protect the American people and to expand opportunity for the next generation."

Expanding on issues he first raised last month before the Chicago World Affairs Council, the senator from Illinois adds "a warming planet" to an otherwise conventional list of security threats that include global terrorists, proliferating nuclear weapons and "weak states that cannot control their territory."

After a U.S. withdrawal pushes Iraqi leaders toward political accommodation, he says, the new president should make a commitment to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, "a task that the Bush administration neglected for years." Obama calls for a dialogue with Iran and Syria, noting that "our policy of issuing threats and relying on intermediaries . . . is failing. Although we must not rule out using military force, we should not hesitate to talk directly."

Pretty conventional stuff, although I suppose that President Truman who went to war in Korea wouldn't necessarily see the advantage to talking to the likes of Syrian and Iran today. And, of course, he believes that threatening (and carrying out) a withdrawal will magically make the government of Iraq competent. He also ignores the fact that despite its heavy investment in Israeli-Palestinian peace the Clinton administration had nothing to show for its investment.

On the other hand Gov. Romney sees the jihadist threat as the main one facing us today.

Romney presents a somewhat narrower vision, echoing Bush in describing "the jihadist threat" as "the defining challenge of our generation." Repeating a speech he gave last month at the George H.W. Bush presidential library, Romney outlines four "pillars" of action, beginning with enhancement of the military. In addition to 100,000 more troops, the former governor of Massachusetts calls for an annual increase of $30 billion to $40 billion in the defense budget and pledges to spend at least 4 percent of the gross domestic product on defense.

Romney's second pillar is energy independence, a process that he says could take at least 20 years and should include increased domestic production with more offshore drilling, more nuclear power and a "fuller exploitation of coal," along with increased energy efficiency. "At the same time," he says without mentioning global climate change, "we may well be able to rein in our greenhouse gas emissions." He calls for a "far-reaching research initiative" to create cleaner energy.

Pillar three is the creation of joint commands, along the lines of the military's, to coordinate the use abroad of nonmilitary resources in health, education, law enforcement and diplomacy. Interagency regional commands, headed by "heavy hitters" with independent budgets, would supervise activities the way the military's regional commands do.

The fourth is a reexamination of U.S. alliances, leading to a greater focus on defeating radical Islam and establishing intelligence and law enforcement networks. Romney says that as one of his first presidential acts, he would call for a "summit of nations" to support moderate Muslims around the world.

The devil, of course, is in the details. How will Romney fund his increase in defense spending is a very real question.

If the article accurately portrays each candidate's views then it would appear that Sen. Obama has an advantage in specifics. On the other hand, a vision is what's needed at this point. While I'm not sure I buy into Romney's energy independence, he recognizes the Islamist threat and that is the difference between him (or most Republicans) and Sen. Obama (or most Democrats). Lacking that understanding of that threat to the West is the biggest failing of the Democrats. (Sen. Obama talks of the war vs. Al Qaeda, but it's more than just Al Qaeda.) The biggest global threat that Obama sees is global warming, a concern that I don't share with him.

Mitt Romney, Barach Obama, Foreign Policy.

Posted by SoccerDad at May 31, 2007 6:28 AM