![](http://web.archive.org./web/20121018023315im_/http://s.huffpost.com/images/quickview/gear_animation.gif)
Yesterday's foreign policy speech by Mitt Romney was the worst of both worlds -- shallow rhetoric followed by a few ill-considered specifics.
On the rhetorical front, we learned that candidate Romney supports a "freer, more prosperous and more peaceful world"; believes in showing "resolve"; and would promote "freedom and opportunity." Who wouldn't?
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright rightly dismissed Romney's speech as "full of platitudes," further noting that "peace through strength is not really a foreign policy."
This is not to suggest that Romney said nothing. He made a few disconnected promises that reinforced the point that he has no viable strategy for addressing 21st-century challenges.
Romney would arm the Syrian opposition, but only the good guys, as if it was possible to tightly control the final destination of U.S. weapons poured into the midst of a chaotic civil war. We tried that in Afghanistan, where U.S. covert arms supplies were siphoned off and used to arm a new generation of terrorists while providing a breeding ground for Al Qaeda. Sending heavy arms to Syria would indeed mark a break from Obama administration policy, but Romney seems blissfully unaware of the risks involved.
On Iran, Romney promised to tighten sanctions, station more combat ships in the area, and move to prevent Iran from developing the capability to build nuclear weapons, as opposed to the weapons themselves. The latter position tracks closely with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's "red line" for military action against Iran. At a minimum, it appears that Romney would stand back and watch Israel launch its own attack on Iran without lifting a finger to persuade Israeli leaders of the potentially disastrous consequences of such a move. Even worse, Romney might launch a U.S. attack in conjunction with Israel, in part because he wants "no daylight" between U.S. and Israeli policies.
Romney further noted that there would be "no flexibility with Vladimir Putin" over U.S. missile defenses in Europe. Failure to even discuss possible adjustments in an anti-missile system will simply stymie efforts towards further nuclear arms reductions on the road to their complete elimination, an outcome that should be a central goal of U.S. foreign policy. And Romney's view, stated elsewhere, that Russia is a dangerous adversary will not bode well for efforts to meet one of his other foreign policy goals, tighter sanctions on Iran, which will depend upon Russian cooperation.
The final pillar of Romney's counterproductive "tough guy" posture is his pledge to "roll back" what he describes as President Obama's "deep and arbitrary cuts" in Pentagon spending. It's not clear which "cuts" Romney is referring to. The Obama administration's current plan, which has been inaccurately described as a program of substantial cuts, is in fact a leveling off of spending at current, historically high levels. Obama's plan only makes "cuts" if compared with the Pentagon's bloated wish list.
It is possible that Romney is referring to the impacts on Pentagon of sequestration, the imposition of across-the-board reductions in discretionary spending that would be triggered if Congress and the president fail to agree on a substantial deficit reduction package. The first problem with this statement is that the reductions required under sequestration are not "Obama's." They are the result of a compromise between the White House and Congress, voted for by such Republican luminaries as House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan (R-WI).
As for the budgetary impact of sequestration, it would reduce Pentagon spending levels, but the reductions would be far less than in any other post-World War II defense build-down. Spending would remain well above the post-World War II average, at about the same levels that prevailed during the second term of the George W. Bush administration -- a very good year for the Pentagon.
Romney is right on one point. The across-the-board cuts imposed by sequestration are a terrible way to manage a build-down; they would prevent policy makers from eliminating ineffective, wasteful, and unnecessary programs while maintaining or increasing investment in programs that work. But reductions of the size that would be required under sequestration are perfectly manageable, and could actually increase our security, if properly implemented. Real reductions could force the military to set priorities and weed out wasteful, unnecessary projects.
Last but not least is Romney's pledge to build 15 ships a year, including three submarines. This could require increasing the Navy budget by up to one-third. And all of this for a navy that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has noted is already larger than the next 13 navies in the world combined, many of which belong to U.S. allies.
Risking war with Iran, pouring weapons into Syria, undermining nuclear arms control and increasing Pentagon spending are dangerous and counterproductive policies that will not prepare the United States to deal with the new challenges of the 21st century. Nor will chanting magic words like "resolve."
William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and the author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex.
Previewing Your Comment.
This comment has not yet been posted.Deterrence works only if threats to use force are credible. Iran paused its nuclear program when the US attacked Iraq in 2003. Unfortunately US President Barack Obama is not feared – with good reason. He is viewed in the Middle East by friends and foes of the US alike as a lightweight.. Obviously the Europeans hardly instill any fear in Tehran. The Tehran zoo provides a good picture of how ostriches behave.
we don't need a President Platitude, thank you.
What does it say about the American electorate that such a blatant fraud can actually get this far in our politics?
Ramping up shipbuilding? Other than the jobs, it is an absurd statement on its face. Where does the number "3 new submarines" come from? As pointed out in the piece, we already have a Navy larger than the net 13 countries ** combined **.
What war is he preparing for [other than Iran] Who will fight this battle? And where will his sons and grandsons be while it is being fought.
I think, if Mitt succeeds, that the US public will look back on the Bush-Cheney years as a period of rationality and good sense. Obama hasn't really done much apologising for his predecessor; he should have. The thought of Mitt arguing with Russia or China or Europe or the Middle East is surreal; most of the World-at-Large is not as compliant or as easily manipulated as the US media; plus, they do not like the United States.
I think Syria should be bombed into submission, but Iran is a totally different ball of wax. All hell will break loose if we attack Iran.
Turkey should take care of Syria, but they don't want to. They can handle the border skirmishes though. Let them bomb the Syrian army. Syria will stop the artillery fire when Turkey forces them to. They are getting their F 16's ready to deal with the Syrians.
The Russians are another complication for the rest of the world to deal with. They are on Assad's side.
Obama can't attack Syria because we would have to clean up after it's all over. Giving weapons to potential Islamic radicals isn't a good idea either.
If Syria is going to be taken care of by NATO or the US, Assad's regime has to be finished off and the country has to be stabilized. That could take years. We have enough problems in Afghanistan.
I think 1 war at a time is a good policy. Better not to have any wars, but if we aren't pulling out of Afghanistan, we might as well concentrate our efforts there. Iran is not even close to making a nuclear weapon. It's all a bunch of hype from the press. They will probably make a dud like North Korea did.
-Inigo