Pentagon: Now on Sale at The Foreign Policy Auction Posted by The Editors

Guest Post by Ben Freeman, Ph.D.

Ben Freeman is an Investigator at the Project on Government Oversight, where he specializes in Department of Defense personnel issues, weapons procurement, and the impact of lobbying by foreign governments on U.S. foreign policy.

The ongoing debate about Pentagon spending and sequestration is a glaring example of how special interests with deep pockets can convince policymakers that even their most absurd claims are true.

After slashing tens of thousands of jobs during years of record profits, the defense industry finances “studies” professing their ability to create jobs. While threatening to layoff off even more workers to save for their corporations’ money, big Pentagon contractor CEO’s enjoy lavish compensation packages worth more than $20 million. To put that into perspective, the Pentagon could pay more than 300 soldiers with the compensation of just one of these CEO’s.

But, Pentagon contractors aren’t the only special interest that would like to keep the spigot of taxpayer money flowing to the Pentagon. For decades, lobbyists working for foreign governments have been quietly, but effectively, working to keep Pentagon money flowing to foreign countries. From fighting to keep and expand military bases in Germany, to lobbying for sending dozens of new F-16’s to Taiwan, foreign lobbying has been instrumental in keeping the Pentagon budget bloated.

Foreign lobbying’s impact on the U.S. military is one of the few issues in America politics that can, without hyperbole, trace its roots back to Adolf Hitler. As the Nazi party came to power in Germany during the 1930’s it sought to influence citizens in other countries, particularly the U.S. On October 22, 1936 a New York Post headline read “Nazi Publicist on GOP Payroll,” and reported that the Republican State Committee was employing prop­agandists associated with U.S. Nazi groups. Outrage over this and similar incidents ultimately led to passage of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) – the first major piece of lobbying legislation at the Federal level.

Reports filed under FARA tell stories of special interest influence that are eerily reminiscent of the tactics employed by big Pentagon contractors. From making large campaign contributions on the very same day they meet with a Member of Congress to discuss a foreign client’s needs, to drafting legislation on behalf of a foreign government, there is little that many D.C. lobbyists won’t do for their foreign clients.

And, most of these governments aren’t exactly staunch U.S. allies. As I chronicle in my book, The Foreign Policy Auction, almost every country that experienced political uprisings during the “Arab Spring” lobbied in the U.S. The Egyptian government, specifically, was aggressively lobbying for U.S. non-intervention before, during, and after the revolution in Egypt. The Pakistan foreign lobby went on a lobbying blitz following the death of Osama bin Laden, in what was a relatively successful campaign that kept more than a billion dollars in U.S. military aid flowing to the country harboring the mastermind of 9/11. China routinely lobbies to discuss the U.S.’s growing debt. Even Iran has lobbyists working in the U.S.

In short, almost every major U.S. national security decision in the 21st century has been influenced by the lobbying of foreign governments.

This undermines U.S. sovereignty and costs taxpayers billions of dollars a year. Foreign lobbyists have even cost the family members of terrorist attack victims $4.5 billion, as I document in The Foreign Policy Auction. Here’s how the story goes:

Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya sponsored and carried out several terrorist attacks that killed U.S. citizens, including the bombing of France’s UTA Flight 172. After years of fighting in U.S. courts, families of UTA Flight 172 victims were awarded $6 billion in damages on January 15^th 2008 by a D.C. District Court.

Two months later the Libyan government was looking for a way out of paying this hefty sum, and signed a $2.4 million contract with The Livingston Group, headed by Bob Livingston, former Republican Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

Ultimately, this investment helped Libya get all their terrorist attacks forgiven, during the height of the “War on Terror,” for just pennies on the dollar.

Within a month of signing the contract, the Livingston Group had, on Libya’s behalf, contacted Minority Leader John Boehner, numerous officials at the State Department including the Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs and Secretary Condoleeza Rice’s chief of staff, as well as staffers and Members of a number of Committees including the Judiciary, Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Foreign Relations.

On July 31^st the Libyan Claims Resolution Act that the Livingston had been pushing was introduced. By that time the firm had contacted nearly 600 Legislators, staffers, members of the Executive Branch, and other influential players on behalf of Libya, according to FARA records. The Livingston Group was even gracious enough to provide Legislators with actual legislative language and a script for discussing Libya in Congressional hearings. In short, agents working on behalf of a known terrorist were putting words in the mouths of U.S. politicians.

According to an official statement, the families of the victims of flight 772 were not pleased with the Bill because it would, “invalidate the court’s judgment, and allow Libya to avoid a court judgment. This simply cannot be what Congress intends.”

Unfortunately for the victims’ families, the bill passed both Chambers that same day. Within weeks the bill was signed into law and the U.S.-Libya Claims Settlement Agreement was signed by U.S. and Libyan representatives in Tripoli. The Agreement required Libya to pay just $1.5 billion to U.S. families who lost loved ones in all of Libya’s terrorist attacks; $4.5 billion less than the UTA Flight 172 victims’ families had been awarded just 8 months before.

The real tragedy is that Qaddhafi was neither the first nor the last terrorist to be pardoned through the work of foreign lobbyists. The State Department announced just last month that the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), or People's Mojahed in Organization of Iran was being removed from the list of foreign terrorist organizations, after years of running a well-financed lobbying, advertising, and public relations campaign.

The fact is that every single day the agents of foreign governments are working to undermine U.S. foreign policy. The Auction is always open. The only question is - which country is buying your government today?

Romney’s Evolving Security Policy: Unreality and Distinctions without a Difference Posted by Bill R. French

Today, Governor Romney gave his third major speech on foreign policy in what appears to be a last-ditch effort to pass the commander-in-chief test. This came just a day after John Lehman, one of Romney’s advisors and Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy, offered further details into the campaign’s much flaunted plan to increase shipbuilding from 9 to 15 vessels per year. Reading both sets of proposals together confirms that the campaign is continuing its foreign policy agenda of taking positions that either stay the course plotted by the current administration -- while claiming some sort of a new departure -- or representing basic misunderstandings of key security realities.  

Here are four of Romney’s proposals that fit into those categories and leave unanswered questions.

1. “I will deepen our critical cooperation with our partners in the Gulf.”

The current administration has already dramatically increased security cooperation with Gulf partners. Included in that cooperation has been a $30 billion dollar arms deal to Saudi Arabia which contains 84 modified F-15s – adding to the country’s already enormous military advantage over Iran – and integrating the capabilities of American regional partners into an interoperable missile defense system. The latter effort has involved a multi-billion dollar deal to sell the United Arab Emirates the advanced THAAD ballistic missile interceptor system and the construction of a missile defense radar site in Qatar. In addition, the United States recently concluded a naval exercise focused on countering underwater mines with over 30 countries in the Gulf in response – the first of its kind.

Hence, the question to the Romney campaign is obvious: what has been deficient about U.S. cooperation with its Gulf partners and what should be done differently?

2. Lehman: Add an additional carrier air wing to the U.S. Navy.

While Lehman’s proposals made for an interesting read -- including a number of serious thoughts, sans fiscal reality --  this was among those that appeared intended to help check the box on having elaborated on Romney’s much touted shipping plan without having met the burden of making sense. That’s because the basic math and operational realities of the Navy’s carrier fleet and air wings make this idea dead in the water.  

The background here is that despite having 11 carriers, the Navy maintains only 10 air wings of around 80 aircraft. Romney now wants to go 11-for-11. But the reason for the current number of air wings is because the full carrier fleet is never fully deployed at once, making having enough planes for the 11^th carrier superfluous. At any given moment, a number of the Empire-State-Building sized ships are undergoing repair or nuclear refueling. Because of this, according to a RAND study, Nimitz class aircraft carriers are deployed an average of 19 percent of the time. Of course, the Navy can surge more of its carrier fleet into action -- as is being done currently with a deployment of two carriers in the Gulf and two in the Pacific --  but since 1990, the Navy has never surged more than 6 carriers into service at once. For these reasons, what function an expensive 11^th air wing would have is unclear.

3. “I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark.”

Of Romney’s latest round of foreign policy commitments, this one is surely the easiest to meet: calling on other countries to do something can be done in the time it takes to utter a phrase. However, having that call be meaningful or accompanied by any reasonable chance of success is another matter entirely. While hopefully those who have projected the Euro Crisis will extend some 20 years are wrong, the fact remains: no solution remains in site and funds are scarce for military spending. Even if the crisis was to be ‘fixed’ overnight and the continent’s debt was brought under control, the European budgets would no doubt remain tight and highly prioritized.

With this backdrop, one wonders what plan Governor Romney has that will convince European members of NATO to spend more on defense when their publics generally want to reduce or maintain current levels military spending?

4. “I will vigorously pursue the terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed Americans.”

Given the tragic deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other American diplomats, this bromide is perhaps the most disconcerting of those released by the Romney campaign in its national security media blitz.  Here, Romney tacitly paints the picture that the administration is not  pursuing those responsible for the attack against the U.S consulate in Benghazi but all evidence is to the contrary.

First, Libyan officials have just announced a number of arrests made in connection with the attack.

Second, there are mounting signs of potential military action against the group that perpetrated the killings and affiliated organizations. The Washington Post is reporting that:

 “The White House has held a series of secret meetings in recent months to examine the threat posed by al-Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and consider for the first time whether to prepare for unilateral strikes.”

Further, the New York Times reports that:

 “The top-secret Joint Special Operations Command is compiling so-called target packages of detailed information about the suspects…the command is preparing the dossiers as the first step in anticipation of possible orders from President Obama to take action against those determined to have played a role in the attack on a diplomatic mission in the eastern city of Benghazi that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three colleagues three weeks ago.”

 In connection with these developments, the intelligence group Stratfor is reporting on "curious U.S. and French military deployments.”

What, then, would Governor Romney be doing differently on this score? 

Initial Steps Towards a Right-Sized, Targeted Approach to Maritime Stability in the Western Pacific, Part 2 Posted by Bill R. French

Last week I began to outline some initial steps available to the United States to encourage greater maritime stability in the Western Pacific. The overriding sense was to examine immediate, near-term options that were both ‘right-sized’ and ‘targeted.’  Emphasizing ‘targeted’ approaches calls for actions to address instability associated with ongoing disputes specifically. This should seem obvious but is in contrasts to the approach taken by some conservatives who treat maritime stability as a 'trickle-down effect' of regional balance of power and American military presence. Emphasizing ‘right-sized’ approaches calls for being mindful of the potential consequences of overreaction and escalation – a case I’ve made elsewhere while critiquing the official GOP proposal for dealing with Chinese assertiveness.

This is not to say ‘hard’ measures cannot be useful, only that they must be smart. To be sure, exploring smart approaches to maritime stability in the region is particularly timely given the administration's extensive use of hard power in the Pacific -- recently summarized by Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter -- and the continued standoff between Japan and China over disputed territories in the East China Sea.

The three recommendations proposed last week work in that direction. However, depending on Chinese behavior after the leadership transition, stronger measures may be worth considering. Should Beijing continue or increase its assertiveness, it may be constructive to signal that more assertive behavior  will come at higher costs designed specifically to undermine the effectiveness of such strong-armed strategies. 

Targeted military and security consequences are one way to affect Chinese calculus in this way. For American policymakers, this creates the problem of having to carefully balance the strength of the signal with the risks of stoking the fears and insecurity of Chinese decision makers. A potential solution to this problem is outlined below as a fourth recommendation:

Romney's Foreign Policy Veneer Posted by David Shorr

Every time Mitt Romney tries to talk about foreign policy he only reveals himself as an emperor with no clothes, and his latest Wall Street Journal op-ed on the Middle East is no exception. Now it's true that Romney trots out my very favorite Republican magic word resolve -- a vague-to-meaningless virtue that supposedly deters hostile deeds and melts animosity. But Romney's WSJ piece represented such a new level of vacuity it made me think differently about Team Romney's approach.

I'm starting to think Governor Romney is merely trying to create the appearance of foreign policy. The best way to describe it would be akin to Stephen Colbert's famous truthiness. What would that be, foreign policyness? Or policyish? 

In other words, it's time to flip around the question about the lack of policy specifics and look at what's being provided in its place. I can't add much to what Greg Scoblete, Daniel Larison, Danielle Pletka, and Jennifer Rubin have already said about how far Romney fell short of offering a constructive alternative to deal with the Middle East. Except this thought: what if this bland nonsense goes as far as the Romney camp feels compelled to? What if this is their unreflective, arrogant, of-course-we'd-do-it-better idea of a foreign policy? What if this looks like foreign policy to the nominee offering himself as the next commander in chief?

As I wrote in reaction to Romney's July speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Republicans' 2012 platform has often made me wonder if they really think foreign policy and national security are as easy as they make it sound. Their proposals carry no trace of difficult trade-offs, unintended consequences, or defiance in the face of "resolve." When I read passages like below, it only confirms a sense of the self-delusion: 

Yet amid this upheaval, our country seems to be at the mercy of events rather than shaping them. We're not moving them in a direction that protects our people or our allies...

Since World War II, America has been the leader of the Free World. We're unique in having earned that role not through conquest but through promoting human rights, free markets and the rule of law....

The Arab Spring presented an opportunity to help move millions of people from oppression to freedom. But it also presented grave risks. We needed a strategy for success, but the president offered none....

In this period of uncertainty, we need to apply a coherent strategy of supporting our partners in the Middle East—that is, both governments and individuals who share our values.

But this Middle East policy will be undermined unless we restore the three sinews of our influence: our economic strength, our military strength and the strength of our values... 

For me, what really solidified this notion of the Romney campaign's confusion of superficiality with substance was top Romney adviser Jim Talent's appearance on Chuck Todd's Daily Rundown this morning. Go ahead and watch the clip for yourself, but I was struck by the off-handed way former Senator Talent said: "we can have a foreign policy where we stabilize these parts of the world if we'll act in the bipartisan traditions of foreign policy since World War II." Apparently all it would take to settle things down in the Middle East would be to "set forth a clear vision for where the region ought to go." Point the way to constitutional governance and respect for human rights, support those who are with us, oppose those who are against, and there you are! Stability, I guess. To his credit, Chuck Todd pressed the question of how deeply the United States should involve itself in molding political order in the region. Talent's response: "we should set forth a vision and identify and give credibility" to the good guys. (Hmmm, maybe I was wrong to pick on resolve, maybe vision is really the thing.) Then for good measure -- and with an attitude of why-don't-you-get-this impatience --Talent rattled off the essentials of the post-WWII consensus: "lead," "work through alliances," "maintain robust power," "anticipate events." 

As I say, what's emerging is that Mitt Romney isn't actually holding back the details of his foreign policy; he thinks he's offering them.

Obama Foreign Policy - A Six-Week Appraisal Posted by David Shorr

According to David Ignatius, President Obama's refusal to make major foreign policy moves in the final weeks before the election will leave the 2012 campaign without a meaningful public airing of the subject:

This strategy of avoiding major foreign policy risks or decisions may help get Obama reelected. But he is robbing the country of a debate it needs to have — and denying himself the public understanding and support he will need to be an effective foreign policy president in a second term, if the “rope-a-dope” campaign should prove successful.

This is a pretty odd idea. Ignatius seems to argue that without real-time statecraft at the height of the political season, voters won't know where the candidates stand. I guess the last four years somehow don't really count. 

In terms of the campaign itself, only by spending the last year living under a rock could you believe voters head to the polls with no foreign policy issues they can weigh. Take President Obama's press conference at the November 2011 APEC summit in Hawaii for example. In the midst of the Republican primary candidate forums, reporters asked the president about Governor Romney's cheeky boast that he would stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon whereas Obama would allow it to happen. That claim and President Obama's response (quoted in part below) were early salvos in a debate Mr. Ignatius appears to have missed. 

[Y]ou take a look at what we've been able to accomplish in mobilizing the world community against Iran over the last three years and it shows steady, determined, firm progress in isolating the Iranian regime, and sending a clear message that the world believes it would be dangerous for them to have a nuclear weapon.

Now, is this an easy issue? No. Anybody who claims it is, is either politicking or doesn’t know what they're talking about. 

This has been the heart of an ongoing debate for nearly a year: how exactly, aside from tough-talking bluster, would our Republican friends manage to compel Iran to roll over and obey US wishes? Last spring I gave an optimistic view of the quality of the foreign policy debate, arguing that in 2012 the opposition couldn't dodge the tough choices that governing entails. Throughout the campaign Team Romney has been pressed to say how their policy would differ from President Obama's mix of strong international pressure and attempted negotiations. (By the way, I'm not sure how Ignatius can argue -- on the basis of an Ahmadinejad taunt in his UN speech -- that these pre-election weeks represent a critical window for the nuclear talks with Iran.) In terms of the Romney-Obama contrast, the president himself has tried numerous times to goad Romney to admit that he favors going to war with Iran, most recently in his 60 Minutes interview (h/t RealClearPolitics). After all, the Obama administration has run a full-court press on all peaceful means.

And the debate has continued literally to this very day, with Romney saying on the campaign trail Friday about Iran that "I do not believe that in the final analysis we will have to use military action." From the Washington Post's report, here's how Romney tried to distinguish his position from Obama policy:

When a reporter asked how Romney’s position on Iran’s nuclear arms development differs from President Obama’s, Romney accused the president of having “moved over time.”

“From the very beginning, I thought crippling sanctions needed to be put in place,” Romney said. Of Obama, he added, “his words more recently are more consistent with the words I’ve been speaking for some time, and we’ll see what actions he pursues.”

So the latest line from the Romney camp is that they'd take the harsher steps more quickly. Okay, this is another substantive contrast we could debate. Two problems. First is the inconvenient fact that the sanctions imposed by President Obama are far more stringent than any of the steps taken by President Bush.

Second is the importance of lining up international support. As they teach you in Foreign Policy 101, sanctions have to be multilateral in order to work; they're just not effective unless all the key players are on board. I make the comparison to President Bush not to say he should've gone further, but to highlight the hubris of Team Romney's we'd-be-tougher argument. Because recruiting international support gets much harder when the United States tries to rush things -- rather than persistently yet steadily spotlighting Iranian intransigence, just as President Obama's done. For one thing, the international community is a little leery of American alarmism after that whole episode with the WMD that turned out weren't in Iraq.

As Romney has campaigned on a platform of general toughness and bluster with scant practical policy steps, it's become clear that their core argument is a belief in what can be achieved with just an aura of strength. Just a couple weeks ago, top Romney surrogate Rich Williamson claimed the Middle East embassy protests wouldn't even have occurred under a President Romney. This is the same blind overconfidence and magical thinking behind Romney's secret videotape boast that the eonomy would get a major boost just from his being elected and before he'd done anything. (With a nod to Paul Krugman, I invented the "Resolve Fairy"^TM to drive home the point.) 

With Williamson's boast as backdrop, I'll close with a question about Libya. As we know, there has been confusion over the nature of the Benghazi attack, which has prompted this statement by the Director of National Intelligence and an ongoing investigation by the State Department. But for the purposes of offering voters a constructive debate to help inform their choices, which is more important for us to discuss: diplomatic security in Benghazi or what was the right response to Ghaddafi's bloody assault on civilians in that city last year? Which issue is a better commander in chief test? As ABC News' Jake Tapper documented a year ago, Romney's position on intervening in Libya was all over the map.

Of course the chief difference between the two issues is that the atttack that claimed the lives of Ambassador Stevens and three others occurred just a few weeks ago, here in the midst of the campaign. Does that mean it's more important? That seems to be what David Ignatius is saying, and I don't think Ignatius' argument is a good case for making the campaign season action-packed with foreign policy. Unless he's saying voters can only decide issues that happened recently; in which case he doesn't give voters much credit.

You say Potato ... Posted by James Lamond

Heather has a comprehensive breakdown of Mitt Romney’s speech at the Clinton Global Initiative earlier this week that is worth a read. After going back a taking a look at the speech, one of his proposals jumped put. In his CGI remarks Romney proposes the creation of “Prosperity Pacts,” to encourage economic growth and foreign investment.  This sounds like an interesting idea. The only issue is that it already exists. The State Department has a program call the Partnership for Growth, which does pretty much what Governor Romney proposes.

Romney specifically proposes:

To foster work and enterprise in the Middle East and in other developing countries, I will initiate “Prosperity Pacts.”  Working with the private sector, the program will identify the barriers to investment, trade, and entrepreneurialism in developing nations. In exchange for removing those barriers and opening their markets to U.S. investment and trade, developing nations will receive U.S. assistance packages focused on developing the institutions of liberty, the rule of law, and property rights.

We will focus our efforts on small and medium-size businesses. Microfinance has been an effective tool at promoting enterprise and prosperity, but we must expand support to small and medium-size businesses that are too large for microfinance, but too small for traditional banks.

Now the language from the State Department’s website explaining its Partnership for Growth program:

Partnership for Growth (PFG) is a partnership between the United States and a select group of countries to accelerate and sustain broad-based economic growth… It involves rigorous joint analysis of constraints to growth, the development of joint action plans to address these constraints, and high-level mutual accountability for implementation. One of PFG’s signature objectives is to engage governments, the private sector and civil society with a broad range of tools to unlock new sources of investment, including domestic resources and foreign direct investment. By improving coordination, leveraging private investment, and focusing political commitment throughout both governments, the Partnership for Growth enables partners to achieve better development results.

The program has already begun with El Salvador, Ghana, Philippines, and Tanzania as the first group of partners. 

2012 and the Implications for Terrorism Detention Policy Posted by James Lamond

For those that missed it, Charlie Savage has a piece on the role of detainee policy and torture this campaign season. He reports:

Mr. Romney’s advisers have privately urged him to “rescind and replace President Obama’s executive order” and permit secret “enhanced interrogation techniques against high-value detainees that are safe, legal and effective in generating intelligence to save American lives,” according to an internal Romney campaign memorandum.

While the memo is a policy proposal drafted by Mr. Romney’s advisers in September 2011, and not a final decision by him, its detailed analysis dovetails with his rare and limited public comments about interrogation.

…

The Romney campaign document, obtained by The New York Times, is a five-page policy paper titled “Interrogation Techniques.” It was a near-final draft circulated last September among the Romney campaign’s “national security law subcommittee” for any further comments before it was to be submitted to Mr. Romney. The panel consists of a brain trust of conservative lawyers, most of whom are veterans of the George W. Bush administration.

Terrorist detention has clearly not been a priority campaign issue this year. When foreign policy and national security issues do rise to the campaign discussion it has typically been Iran, the Benghazi attack and the protests in the Middle East. To a lesser extent Russia and China has also been discused. However, as was seen with the NDAA battle last year, this debate is far from over and whover wins in November will be faced with serious decisions.

What I continue to find surprising however is the debate continuing specifically on the issue of “enhanced interrogation techniques.”  In 2008 both John McCain and Barack Obama took strong stances against hese abuses. Additionally expert interrogators repeatedly discount the utility of  “EITs”:

Mark Fallon, a former interrogator and special agent in charge of the criminal investigation task force at Guantanamo Bay: “I was privy to the information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed at the time. I’m not aware of any information or intelligence that was a product from water boarding…  I’ve seen no information that the infliction of pain equates to the elicitation of accurate information.”  [Mark Fallon via MSNBC, 5/3/11]

Matthew Alexander, the pseudonym of the Air Force interrogator who located Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, said: “When you use coercive techniques, which includes waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques, you get the bare minimum amount of information out of a detainee. And that bare minimum of information is going to lack the details that you need to execute a mission to take out a target.” [Matthew Alexander, 5/4/11]

Glenn L. Carle, a retired C.I.A. officer who oversaw the interrogation of a high-level detainee in 2002, told the New York Times that coercive techniques “didn’t provide useful, meaningful, trustworthy information.” [Glenn Carle via NY Times, 5/3/11]

Additionally, there is a strong consensus that such actions actually hurt our national security interests. David Petraeus famously noted, when asked if he wished that the use of torture or “enhanced interrogation” was available as a tool during interrogations,  “I think that whenever we have, perhaps, taken expedient measures, they have turned around and bitten us in the backside… Abu Ghraib and other situations like that are nonbiodegradables.  They don’t go away.  The enemy continues to beat you with them like a stick in the Central Command area of responsibility.”

On his second day in office President Obama very publicly broke with the previous administration’s policies on detainee issues. While Congressional hand tying has prevented progress on some issues, including the closure of Guantanamo Bay, the use of EITs was for many a settled issue, that we have moved past. Besides it is not as if there has not been great success against al Qaeda in that time period. 

Initial Steps Towards a Right-Sized, Targeted Approach to Maritime Stability in the Western Pacific, Part 1 Posted by Bill R. French

The ongoing spat between China and Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea highlights increasing maritime instability in the Western Pacific. While the standoff between the world’s second and third largest economies is troubling enough, the crisis is but the latest in a series of serious maritime disputes involving the Peoples Republic of China. Until this flare up, the epicenter of territorial and maritime disputes in East Asia had been concentrated in the South China Sea where, for example, a major standoff took place between Beijing and the Philippines in April-May of this year over the Scarborough Shoal.

While the severity of China’s behavior in these disputes has eased slightly compared to previous years, the intensity and frequency of dispute-driven tensions remains well above the relative calm seen in the previous 15 years or so. And although the disputes have not returned to the feverous peaks of the 1970s and 1980s which witnessed two limited naval wars between China and Vietnam (ending in China occupying features of the Parcel Islands), the future remains uncertain – especially as Chinese power grows. 

Thinking Through a Way Forward:  U.S. Interests and Objectives

Underlying American economic interests – and security commitments – gives the United States a strong stake in the stability of the Western Pacific. While the situation is not as dire as some have portrayed, American policymakers should be considering options to bolster stability and moderate the trajectory of maritime disputes in the region. This entails addressing instability in both the East and South China Seas. Unfortunately, though the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute and the Scarborough Shoal standoff have been widely discussed, few American commentators have proposed constructive ways forward. Even fewer have proposed ways forward that are readily available, near-term options -- what will therefore be the focus of the recommendations found below.

In actionable terms, bolstering stability and moderating the trajectory of these disputes would entail the following objectives:

• Further blunt Chinese assertiveness in pressing its claims;

• Better incentivize Beijing to diplomatically engage the relevant parties in the South China Sea and East China Sea to ease tensions and minimize the risk of future escalations;

• Reassure U.S. partners regularly locked in disputes with Beijing, especially the Philippines and Japan who are both U.S. treaty partners; and

• Take the necessary steps to reassure the Chinese that such measures are not intended to contain China.

The most vital – and most difficult – of these objectives is to incentivize China to relax its behavior and take diplomacy more seriously as a way ease - and eventually resolve -- its disputes. For example, while Beijing plays lip service to diplomatic solutions to maritime disputes, it has all but abandoned cooperation with efforts to establish a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. China seriously returning to these diplomatic efforts should be the primary midterm goal of any maritime stability strategy developed by the United States for the region.

Rating Romney at CGI Posted by Heather Hurlburt

My friend Jon Cohn and others are all excited that Mitt Romney gave a speech at the Clinton Global Initiative this morning that reminds “how different and, I think, more appealing Romney can be when he’s not trying to be such an ideologue.”

I’m going to suggest, gently, that they perceive this speech as more positive and intelligent because they are less well-acquainted with its subject matter.  Let me offer three examples:

First, Romney starts his speech by trotting out that hoariest canard, that aid doesn’t work:  “We wonder why years of aid and relief never seem to diminish the hardship, why the suffering persists decade after decade.”

This is conventional wisdom that is very far from true. Just since 2000, child deaths have fallen by almost 30% worldwide, with some countries reducing under-five child mortality by as much as 60%. The total number of children out of school worldwide has fallen, even as the global population of school-age children has grown; for the first time, every region has more than ¾ of its youngest children in school. How’d that happen? Not through the magic of private enterprise, but the UN, government, foundations, charities, and public-private partnerships – all spurred by the UN Millennium Development Goals which were a project of government, and by national governments themselves deciding investment in child health and education were fundamental building blocks to economic success, be it in free-market or managed economies.

If you go back more than ten years you will find other successes led by governments of equal or larger-scale:  the Bush Administration’s leading role in nudging the world to scale up its response to AIDS (a role which included nudging private enterprise to do better in cutting vaccine and treatment costs); and the multi-decade effort to eradicate polio and some parasitic diseases.

 Second, the role of government in fostering free enterprise and promoting direct business engagement. Romney spoke at length and movingly about this. Few aid experts would disagree with his words. They would, however, as I do, wonder whether he is aware that his party has repeatedly criticized, cut and threatened to cut economic assistance to Middle Eastern societies, including support for business and public-private partnerships – most recently last week after the embassy attacks. In particular, one wonders whether he knows that his running mate Paul Ryan’s budget would cut spending on foreign aid (and also embassy security…) by 10%.

Finally, the role of trade in lifting communities and societies from poverty and into dignity and self-sufficiency. Romney’s rhetoric here would be cheered by many, if not most in the aid community and in developing countries themselves, who have long sought freer access to our markets and said they would prefer it to aid.

One wonders, therefore, why he has not been a strong proponent of efforts to reform U.S. farm subsidies to offer more of an opening to dirt-poor farmers in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. One wonders whether he knows that Paul Ryan supports a budget that would actually cut U.S. support for poor farmers growing their own food and food for export – in favor of programs that ship surplus U.S. agricultural products and undercut local farmers. No, one doesn’t really wonder at all – it’s domestic politics. One just wishes that the reporters and columnists who are gaga over his apparent reasonableness would ask him about it.

One might also remember that his autobiography contains some similarly ringing language about the value of open trade with China – a view he seems to have completely discarded in favor of campaign-trail attempts to curry favor with economically-threatened voters in the industrial Midwest.  So private enterprise works better to fight poverty… unless that poverty is in China. In which case, folks, you better hope communism works out for you.

 

Liz Cheney Makes Criticizing Obama Look Hard Posted by David Shorr

If you've ever wondered what is the basis on which right-wing firebreathers argue the supposed weakness of Obama foreign policy, Liz Cheney's Wednesday WSJ op-ed shows how it's done. With its ludicrous twists of logic, the piece merely proves that Republicans this year can only mount a foreign policy critique and argument by pulling it out of, um, thin air.

Truth be told, it's been several weeks since John Bolton gave me fresh material to put through the ol' foreign policy fallacy shredder. So I have to thank Ms. Cheney for providing such Boltonesque fodder. 

Of course the news hook for the piece was last week's attacks on US diplomatic missions in the Middle East. And President Obama's scandalous response?

The president appeared in the Rose Garden less than 24 hours later to condemn the Libya assault and failed even to mention the attack in Egypt. The message sent to radicals throughout the region: If you assault an American embassy but don't kill anyone, the U.S. president won't complain.

Let's see if I can grasp the point here. The president's statement in honor of the diplomats murdered in Benghazi was an implicit message of "no biggie" regarding the protesters who breached the gates of the Cairo embassy?? So this is the clear sign of American weakness: the failure to mention the Egypt protests in the statement honoring Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues. Does that strike anyone else as a bit of a stretch?

Besides, President Obama certainly did react to the events in Egypt -- not only expressing his displeasure directly to President Morsi, but publicly upping the stakes for US-Egyptian relations by saying he's not sure whether Egypt is a US ally. For former Bush White House aide David Frum, the statement was "Obama's shrewdest gaffe." (There were similar takes from Mideast expert Juan Cole and Michael Tomasky.)  Commentary on the attacks also included a persuasive caution against over-reacting; funnily enough, that caution came from prominent Republican foreign policy maven Robert Kagan. 

As Liz Cheney's indictment of Obama foreign policy goes on, her case only gets more laughable. For instance there's Cheney's slam against cuts in the US nuclear arsenal, which she chalks up to "the leftist fallacy that the key to world peace is for the US to pre-emptively disarm."  And if that choice line isn't quite shrill enough, she goes on to say: "These are steps you take only if you believe that America—not her enemies—is the threat." Oh, and Cheney characterizes Obama as "standing silently with the mullahs" after the stolen election of 2009 and violent crackdown on protesters.

These last bits of slander don't deserve a response; their ugliness speaks for itself. As for the well-worn argument denying any link between the US arsenal and the spread of history's deadliest arms, it leaves a huge hole where the Non-Proliferation Treaty should be. The international framework for nonproliferation not only calls on the nuclear "have-nots" to never acquire n-weapons, but also requires the "haves" to get rid of ours. Notwithstanding Liz Cheney's caricature, progressives do not believe that US arms control steps will inspire Iranian leaders toward their own good deeds. But we do believe that if America keeps more arms than it could ever justify, this would indeed make it much harder to bring international pressure on Tehran or Pyongyang.

Naturally, Cheney's version of the abandoning-our-friends trope invokes the prime minister of Israel:

In too many parts of the world, America is no longer viewed as a reliable ally or an enemy to be feared. Don't take my word for it. Ask Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Recent news has been rife with reports about the prime minister's demands for a more bellicose approach toward Iran. But did you know who isn't standing behing Netanyahu's rush to war? Well for one thing, a sizable chunk of Israeli officialdom and the country's security establishment. This is the Israeli domestic political reality that isn't reflected in our own politics: Netanyahu is pretty far out on a limb with his position on Iran. 

Cheney concludes with the requisite scare tactics over sequestration. As we know, this particular talking point is distortion in its purest form. The very point of the 2011 budget deal's so-called "triggers" was for them to be so horrifying that lawmakers would take action on the deficit to avoid them. The defense cuts are draconian by design, holding a proverbial gun to the head of congressional Republicans. If that threat fails to produce deficit reduction, then you can say the Republicans aren't really serious about the deficit. You can also say they reneged on the deal they made last year. But you can't say President Obama made those cuts to the defense budget. 

Photo: US Departmtent of State

The Two War Construct: Myths, Realities and Questions Posted by Bill R. French

Today, Governor Romney made the beginings of a important contribution to how the presidential campaign season has so far addressed defense policy. Speaking at a Campaign event, he said:  

"Ever since FDR we've had the capacity to be engaged in two conflicts at once and [President Obama] said no, we're going to cut that back to only one conflict,"

Here, Romney is referring to the ‘two war force sizing construct,’ a requirement that Pentagon planners have historically used to design the U.S. armed forces to conduct two major conflicts simultaneously (well, sort of -- read on). While the issue may appear obscure, it’s in fact quite significant. Such concepts set the bar for the capabilities that the total force is intended to posses by imagining some overall set of missions or abilities that force should be able to undertake. This in turn helps to guide allocating resources. In this way, the concepts used for force planning, of which those directed at the overall size of the force are a prominent example,  are among the principal factors that help the DoD determine what it needs and what to do with what it has.  

Students of history, for example, will recognize that Great Britain’s famous “Two-Power Standard” played a prominent role in maintaining the British Empire. According to that force-sizing construct, the Royal Navy maintained a fleet as large as its nearest two competitors combined.

Given their significance, Romney is thus correct if he wants to insist that topline planning constructs ought to have a prominent place in a serious, deep debate over defense policy. And so, in a very real sense, his comment does begin to contribute. But before explaining that contribution, there is a more pressing factual matter at hand, namely that the Obama administration has not proposed jettisoning the two war requirement at all. 

3 am Call Waiting Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Yesterday, the Atlantic’s Jim Fallows wrote that the response to attacks on U.S. Embassies in Cairo and Benghazi was Mitt Romney’s three am phone call, and that his instinct to jump the gun on politicizing the attacks, then double down the next morning, amounted to flunking the “3 am call” test of leadership that Hillary Clinton posed to Barack Obama in the 2008 primary. (Oh, for those genteel days!)

In the last day, world leaders have been burning up that 3 am hotline. Late last night, President Obama spoke to Libya’s interim leader, who apologized for his government’s failure to protect Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team. The message Obama had to deliver: someone will pay for this. Your sovereignty will not get in the way of that. And we will do what we need to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

That was a piece of cake compared to the call that followed, with Egypt’s President Mohammed Morsi, who unlike his Libyan colleague had waited late into the day to express regret for the damage done and his government’s failure to protect our embassy – even as his political movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, was calling for more protests today and tomorrow.  We can extrapolate the message here from an interview Obama gave to Telemundo:  Egypt is neither an ally nor an enemy. If it fails to protect our embassy, however, that would be “a real big problem.”

Then Obama would have gotten the word – likely in person – that a foreshadowed protest and assault on our embassy in Sanaa, Yemen was underway. Another round of calls, another leadership challenge – make sure our diplomats and Marines on the ground have the support they need, not backbiting criticism as they are under fire.

Don’t roll over and go back to sleep just yet, though. In Beijing, today the Chinese government finally allowed a public mention of what has been gossiped about for ten days – the man tapped as China’s next leader has dropped out of public sight. He is rumored to have a heart attack. If the CIA knows that for sure, they will have sent someone in to brief Obama, who with his team has difficult choices to make. Can he – or someone – speak to China’s current leaders frankly about this?  Is that too big a loss of face? How can the two leaderships work together to steady global financial markets and prevent North Korea from acting out while its patron is occupied? At the same time, what steadying message must Obama give to American allies around the Pacific?

You don’t have to be a Democrat, or a political junkie, to think that the events of the last 48 hours raise serious questions about how Mitt Romney and his closest advisors – the ones who are “absolutely behind” the decision to go after Embassy Cairo staff, and the ones who spent yesterday criticizing it off-the-record – would handle that red phone ringing off the hook.

Unknown and Known Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Last night’s tragic and violent demonstrations in Benghazi, Libya and Cairo, Egypt have unleashed a torrent of on-line commentary and speculation today, with some occasional fact-based reporting mixed in. Add to that a heavy, disgraceful dose of electioneering over the not-yet-cold corpses of our public servants. Here’s what you need to catch up.

We still don’t know fundamental facts about what happened.  This is important, because some commentators and legislators have called for immediately cutting off aid to Egypt and Libya, or even for military strikes. But a smart response will be one that has facts on its side. Some things we don’t yet know:  Who is responsible? A Libya-based extremist group with links to Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility; the Libyan government has pointed fingers at Al Qaeda. Washington has said nothing. Were the Libya and Cairo protests coordinated? There’s no evidence of that.

We don’t know why. Was the Benghazi attack part of protests of a Western film perceived as anti-Islamic, or was it planned separately in advance and just took advantage? We don’t know, and at least one commentator suggests the killing was in retaliation for a US drone strike in Pakistan.

We also don’t know as much as we thought we knew about the film that sparked the first round of protests. Reporting before and immediately after the protests identified an “Israeli” or “Jewish American” film producer, Sam Bacile, who had posted on YouTube an incendiary trailer for a film, funded by “100 Jewish donors” and promoted by Terry Jones, the Florida pastor of 2010 Koran-burning fame. Subsequent reporting has brought his religion, nationality and very existence into question, and the only thing that seems clear is that someone was eager to fan the flames of sectarian hatred – and not eager to be identified.  The actors and crew now say they were misled, thinking they were making a film about a “generic Egyptian” named “Master George,” with the most incendiary lines appear to have been (poorly) overdubbed after filming. In one scene, the dubbed voice says “Mohammed” while the actor’s lips appear to say “George.”

 

What we do know:

Someone posted an inflammatory, poorly-produced video that seemed designed to anger Muslims, and then began promoting it to make sure people noticed. They did. Protests were planned in Cairo and Benghazi. Some protestors at each event seemed to have more violent goals in mind, with the result of a tense standoff in Cairo that closed the US Embassy, and a four-hour firefight in Benghazi that left ten Libyan security guards and four Americans dead, and three more Americans (and probably many Libyans) injured.

We learned today some important things about how people in the region and in the United States are reacting, and what that says about the future.

Libyan people are anxious for Americans to know this violence doesn’t reflect their views.  Thousands of Libyans demonstrated in solidarity with Washington and against extremism today. Ten Libyan security guards gave their lives trying to protect the consulate and our diplomats in Benghazi. At the same time, Libyans went to the polls – and seem to have selected the most pro-Western of the candidates for Prime Minister.

More protests are coming. A protest in Tunis today was pushed back by Tunisian security forces. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood has called for more Cairo protests against the offending movie tomorrow. Protests may occur in Yemen as well. Experts are watching Afghanistan, where prior protests of perceived American insults to Islam have resulted in American fatalities, and Pakistan with great concern – such great concern that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called Koran-burning Florida pastor Terry Jones and asked him to stop promoting the video.

The fate of the “Arab Spring” still hangs in the balance. Some commentators see in this violence, and governments’ inability or unwillingness to control it, the end of hopes for progress toward democracy across the Arab world. Foreign Policy’s Marc Lynch suggests, instead, that not the events themselves but how governments and peoples react, today and in the days to follow, will decide. In the long run, the greatest strategic worry here may be the Muslim Brotherhood-allied government of Egypt, whose response to the attack on our Embassy has been disappointing in rhetoric and substance.

So may the fate of Mitt Romney. After the Romney campaign issued a press release criticizing a statement made by Embassy Cairo while it was under siege, and followed up with Romney criticizing Obama shortly before the President spoke this morning, senior GOP leadership hurried to call for national unity while declining to endorse Romney’s critique. GOP foreign policy wonks, meanwhile, fell over each other to complain to reporters off-the-record, with John McCain’s former Chief of Staff Mark Salter writing a firm rebuke.  The media has spent the day piling on, with pundits debating whether this is the end of Romney’s campaign or just one more bad day.

 

  

Analyzing Romney's F-22 Suggestion Posted by Bill R. French

This past weekend, Governor Romney shed new light on the details of his plan to increase the Pentagon’s base budget to 4% of GDP. Rather, he shed new light on a detail. Speaking on a local Virginia television station on Saturday, he said:

“Rather than completing nine ships per year, I’d move that up to 15. I’d also add F-22s to our Air Force fleet.”

While Romney has been mentioning his shipbuilding proposal since his breakout foreign policy speech at the Citadel during the primaries, this is the first time he has suggested additional F-22 Raptors. While some suspicion has arisen over the proposal, there have been no thorough commentaries on the matter as of yet. 

But there’s plenty of suspicion to be had.

Political Motivations

From a political point of view, it’s likely that Romney’s mention of the F-22 is a response to the growing criticism his campaign has received from failing to put forward a plan for how it wants to spend its proposed increase in the defense budget. While this is not a national security election, fiscal issues have been prominent, leaving the campaign vulnerable if it fails to provide further details to justify its expensive plan for the Pentagon, which may carry a price tag in excess of $2 trillion.

My own speculation is that Romney’s F-22 blurb may evidence discussions within the campaign to this effect. The suggestion itself may be a topline take away that the candidate recalled on the spot from those conversations. If this is case, we can perhaps expect the Romney campaign to put forward more details on its defense plan as it works them out ex post facto.

A Bad Way to Spend Money Against the Chinese

But from a military and budgetary point of view, two things stand out. On the operational level, more F-22s would cohere with the campaign’s emphasis on high-end threats, especially a hawkish perception of China – the only threat perception that can possibly justify more Raptors. On a budgetary level, buying more of the high-cost, high-profile items would certainly be on the short list for anyone looking to justify increased defense spending. According to the Congressional Research Service, the F-22 has a total program cost of over $60 billion and an Average Unit Procurement Cost of $191.6 million as of 2007, just before the program was terminated in 2009 and the total buy was truncated at 195 aircraft.

Note, however, that Romney’s Raptors would almost certainly cost more, given the costs of restarting the F-22 assembly line and depending how economies of scale factor on the number of new units produced. 

Yet, even putting cost aside,  the operative question is: would buying more F-22s deliver the capabilities that the Air Force needs and would  benefit from substantially?  While there is no question that more F-22s would increase American airpower – a goal that buying more of any airplane accomplishes by definition  – the answer to this quesetion is, "no."  Importantly, the answer remains “no” especially if we for the sake of argument share the Romney campaigns hawkish perception of Chinese military power.

Obama v. Romney on Foreign Policy - A Guide for Iowans Posted by David Shorr

Many thanks to the Des Moines Register for publishing -- on a day Obama and Biden are in Iowa -- my latest in a series of commentaries on the 2012 foreign policy debate. You can see it on the DMReg web site, but the text is below. 

BYPASSING RHETORIC IN FOREIGN POLICY DEBATE

The presidential campaign has been heating up and the foreign policy debate along with it. As the opposing camps’ arguments about national security go back and forth, Iowans should distinguish between two debates.

One is a phony argument over America’s fundamental strength as a global power and leader. It’s an unnecessary fight, part and parcel of this year’s toxic politics. Our country’s unrivaled military and economic might is beyond question, and the idea of either candidate lacking faith is just silly. Our armed forces outmatch any potential adversary by a considerable margin.

If anything, the lesson of the past decade is the difference between overcoming an opponent in a traditional conflict — also know as “kinetic” operations — and molding the social and political order in a country like Iraq or Afghanistan.

And that is the point of the second, more substantive, foreign policy debate this year. Can the United States achieve all of our international aims through brute strength alone?

 

Take the challenge of Iran’s nuclear program, for instance, a top item on President Barack Obama’s international agenda and a hot topic in the campaign. As much as Mitt Romney and the Republicans talk about Iran, they always leave out a crucial fact: Obama has put Iran under the toughest sanctions and strongest international pressure it has ever faced.

The Obama administration has marshaled this pressure by taking a different approach from President Bush — steadily building a broad united front with other nations, instead of just issuing demands and expecting others to fall into line.

Obviously the problem of guaranteeing Iran is kept from building a nuclear weapon remains unresolved. The point is that Obama’s attempts at negotiation, tests of Iran’s good faith, continued pressure and international coalition-building give the best chance to reach a peaceful solution and avoid war. Romney and U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan love to talk about tough choices, yet on Iran they refuse to choose between supporting going to war or specifying what they would do differently from Obama.

I often quote a favorite line from Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass (a Republican, by the way) that captures the essential challenge to America as a global power: “The United States does not need the world’s permission to act, but it does need the world’s support to succeed.” Because of our military and economic power, America has unique leverage — and responsibility — that is, indeed, essential to our foreign policy.

 

As we saw during the George W. Bush years, however, when America is too heavy-handed in using that power, it can stir up a lot of hostility around the world. By the end of the Bush term, we had drawn the lesson that in today’s interconnected world: America cannot afford to have the world regard us with suspicion.

Most Americans understand that our credibility had to be restored after we invaded Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist. For so many of the biggest challenges we face — fostering economic recovery from the 2008 global meltdown, averting severe disruption from climate change, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and preventing terrorist attacks — success hinges on recruiting the help of others. On all those fronts, Obama has sought international support and obtained it.

It’s not clear what lessons Romney drew from the Bush years — or whether he learned anything at all, for that matter. Listening to the Republicans’ rhetoric this year, we hear a lot more tough talk than tough choices. A lot more platitudes about American leadership than practical proposals for how to exercise it.

To put it another way, the issue this November is not whether the United States will be a global leader, but whether it will be an effective leader. As the saying goes, a leader without followers is just someone who’s gone out for a walk.

The Post-Post-9/11 Era and Strategic Initiative Posted by Bill R. French

This post was coauthored with Lauren Haigler

Tonight, the Democratic National Convention will highlight national security policy. While it’s unclear the extent to which national security will gain attention in an election preoccupied by economic concerns, a transformation of U.S. foreign policy is underway that deserves careful thought. Senator John Kerry captured that transformation in a recent article in Foreign Policy when he wrote, “we are entering a post-9/11 era full of unchartered waters.” While the statement may appear innocuous, its content effectively implies the essential structure of the challenges and opportunities facing the United States in the coming period: as we free ourselves from the entanglements of the past decade, how should policy makers seize the strategic initiative and to what end?

The Post-Post-9/11 Era

The coming era is not “post-9/11” in the same sense President Bush had in mind when that phrase was meant to inspire paranoia or fear. Instead, we live in a post-9/11 era in the sense that the most immediate and consuming – but by no means all – of the security challenges associated with the September 11 attacks and the Bush Administration’s response to them are coming to an end. The war in Iraq has concluded. Regular combat forces are on course to withdraw from Afghanistan by 2014. Osama bin Laden is dead. Since May 2011, 22 senior operatives in the Al Qaeda network have been killed or captured and successful attacks by Al Qaeda have dropped by 16%. It is therefore credible when President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta claim that the defeat of Al Qaeda is “within reach.”

As a result, the United States has the opportunity to more fully regain the strategic initiative and set a forward looking national security agenda. While Senator Kerry is correct to refer to this opportunity as “uncharted waters,” there are first draft maps and plans already in motion to consider. In its efforts to capitalize on this opportunity, the administration has charted a course of strategic rebalancing, whereby the United States has shifted focus from the Middle East and Central Asia – including the two massive stability operations there over the past decade – to challenges that have gone underdressed as the international environment has evolved over the past decade.

Rebalancing Where and What

A renewed focus on the Asia-Pacific has thus far been the flagship of this initiative. While this blog has previously written on the hard power components of American Pacific power, the deployment of other aspects of U.S national power should not be ignored. For example, the State Department has bolstered its institutional engagement with ASEAN as part of a broader strategy of shaping the region in a way that is consistent with American interests and made accession into the Trans Pacific Partnership a top priority to increase American exports.

But strategic rebalancing should be regarded as involving broader changes in American national security focus. It is not just ‘where’ American focus is shifting, but also to ‘what.’ That is, rebalancing is both geographic and functional. Here, cybersecurity is an illuminating case.  Like the rising significance of the Asia-Pacific, cyberspace had gone underdressed despite its increasing value and demonstrated vulnerabilities. In a step in the right direction, the administration has released the first comprehensive International Cyber Strategy, an agenda for cybersecurity initiatives and increased efforts to generate military cyber power. President Obama also forcefully supported the Cybersecurity Act, portions of which may now be implemented by executive order.

In both above illustrative cases, the United States has achieved much but more is needed.

Continuing to Seize the Strategic Initiative

How the next administration should build on the groundwork for ‘charting the waters’ ahead? This is an open question. However, the most basic answer is that the next administration should continue the transformation to our ‘post-9/11 era’ already underway and identify what opportunities are best addressed – and what challenges are best met – by continuing to seize and apply the strategic initiative.

In this sense, possessing the initiative may be regarded as acting on states of affairs in the world while their outcome is still in question – i.e., acting on events before they develop sufficiently to  ‘act on you’ or ‘shaping events’ in the language common to National Security Strategies. In selecting which events to shape, those associated with trends that will have a greater consequence on the structure of the international system should be preferred. By focusing on such affective events and trends, initiative is directed strategically in that its consequences feedback into structural changes of the system, thereby effecting the future events within the system that may impact American interests in the future. 

The administration’s rebalancing towards cybersecurity and the Asia-Pacific are both early examples of what a foreign policy agenda driven by seizing the strategic initiative might look like. Yet how to set that agenda more fully is a matter to be determined. Fortunately today we have the breathing room for its consideration – a real opportunity.

President Obama's "Responsibility Doctrine" Posted by David Shorr

In an article in the new issue of Foreign Service Journal, Nina Hachigian and I highlight a major thread of Obama foreign policy we think has been underappreciated:

Under a responsibility doctrine, foreign policy is driven by the need to solve global problems and strengthen the multilateral norms and structures on which a viable 21st-century, rules-based order depends.  The aim is not simply to establish a balance of power, but to bring about a dynamic framework through which to practically address global challenges.  The strategic premise is that emerging major and middle powers can become significant contributors to global peace and prosperity — whether co-opted or pressed into accepting responsibility along with influence.

A lot of of observers have weighed in on the question of whether Obama actually has a strategy. Much of the commentary has noted, correctly, President Obama's emphasis on interests the United States shares widely with other key international players. While the focus on common interests is a close cousin of the Responsibility Doctrine, it doesn't convey the Obama administration's persistent effort to rope others into doing their part.

The strategy is not about the United States stepping back but others stepping up.  The U.S. must continue serving as leader, guarantor of the system and a catalyst of collective crisis-management, and Washington’s traditional alliances with nations sharing democratic values remain a bedrock of U.S. foreign policy.  Yet there is a compelling case for bringing diverse emerging powers, including the BRICS countries, into closer alignment on global challenges, despite geostrategic rivalries.

Translation: never mind the ridiculous debate over so-called "declinism." Nina and I don't claim that cooperation is bursting out all over, but we do argue that Obama foreign policy is nudging others toward a new dynamic. 

If the responsibility doctrine succeeds, emerging powers will internalize the duties that come with being a stakeholder.  Here in the early stages of the process, these players are gradually gaining a sense of ownership over the major challenges confronting the world and a dawning awareness that shared problems must be solved.  The internal debates in China, India and elsewhere about those nations’ global roles are positive signs.

To be sure the Responsibility Doctrine is about sharing the burden, but it's also about sharing ownership. I like to think of it as a matter of fulfilling civic duties "adhering to international laws and norms, contributing to global problem-solving, and enforcing norms when others flout them." That's why then-Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick's 2005 definition of a responsible stakeholder remains highly relevant to this day. 

But as they say, read the whole thing. 

Image: Hede2000

The Romney-Obama Foreign Policy Debate -- Of Campaigns and Caricatures Posted by David Shorr

While Tampa was hosting the Republican convention this week, ForeignPolicy.com hosted its own battle of the expert surrogates -- particularly an exchange between Obama supporters Bruce Jentleson and Charlie Kupchan and Romney supporter Peter Feaver. The debate this campaign season over national security has been a pretty high-temperature contest, and Feaver calls 'foul' on how Democrats have been waging it:

But it is simply false to then claim, as Kupchan and Jentleson do, that Romney's worldview "...reveals a basic misunderstanding of the role of power in international affairs" or that he clings "to the notion that the more often the United States flexes its military muscles and demonstrates bravado, the more readily the rest of the world will have to get in line...." That is a caricature that exists in the minds of Democratic spinners, not in the reality of how a President Romney would wield American power and influence.

Spinner sounds awfully crass, but regular Democracy Arsenal readers know I have hammered away at this critique -- highlighting Republicans' propensity for bluster and faith in the magic of the Resolve Fairy^TM. Okay then, I'm perfectly willing to step back and have a meta-debate. Today's topic: simplistic Republican worldview, characterization or caricature?

Before I dive in, though, a few more words about what Prof. Feaver asks of his political counterparts. In the same piece where he decries unfair stereotypes, he also argues that President Obama only achieved foreign policy successes by acting more like a Republican, while 

in almost every case where Obama followed his own instincts, he undermined the success of the policy or made the situation worse. 

Wait, it gets even better. Feaver also wrote an additional post in which he gave himself a big pat on the back for being so generous and laudatory toward the Obama administration. Then he dared Obama supporters to admit policy failures and not let ourselves muzzled by an Administration that is "exceptionally thin-skinned." Feaver goads us by saying that he knows admitting any kind of error is "dangerous for Democrats to do." On twitter I believe they call this concern trolling. 

I can't speak for Bruce or Charlie, but the relentless, mendacious, shrill campaign against President Obama -- not just this election year, but the last three years -- just hasn't put me in much of a mood to provide self-criticism at the other side's request. Besides, Feaver has already chalked up all of Obama's successes as validations of the Republican approach; what kind of foreign policy debate is this, any way?

Now returning to the question at hand, is the idea of Republican foreign policy as muscle-bound and blustery a fair representation of how a President Romney would wield American power? For all Feaver's cries of "spin" and pride in the Romney campaign's foreign policy white paper, let's stick to the arguments and ideas that have been put before the American people.

Nearly the entire Republican foreign policy platform is a variation on the same theme of President Obama not having been sufficiently firm and unyielding in the pursuit of America's international aims. I have seen virtually no admission that US foreign policy has to be calibrated to interests, positions -- realities for that matter -- other than our own and thus see no reason why Democrats should give credit for it. This has put the Romney campaign in a box of its own making and sometimes led to the odd spectacle of the Romney camp trying to criticize the Obama administration while arguing for things the administration is already doing.

To bang on another drum I've been beating a lot, there's an Obama foreign policy success that Republicans mention even less than the killing of Osama Bin Laden: putting Iran under the toughest sanctions and strongest international pressure ever. And I'd argue this success stems directly from President Obama's instincts about playing to the court of international community opinion -- testing Iran's good faith, earning the moral high ground (rather than presume it), and quietly obtaining broad diplomatic support. 

But rather than merely assert that the Romney campaign has been singing the same simplistic note about how American power works, the rest of this post will consist of passages from the Republicans' most significant statements on foreign policy... 

GOP Platform: Dropping the Ball on Foreign Policy Posted by The Editors

The following post is by DA contributors James Lamond and Bill French.

Since the GOP platform has been released, there has been lots of parsing of the various positions released, and with tonight’s speeches there should be a focus on the foreign policy and national security section. Walter Pincus of the Washington Post described the national security platform has high on criticism of President Obama but light on policy recommendations to address these challenges. Below are five national security issues that the platform attempts to offer a policy proposal, but fall flat.

Missile Defense

Claim:  “With unstable regimes in Iran and North Korea determined to develop nuclear-tipped missiles capable of reaching the United States…it is folly to abandon a missile shield for the country.”

Reality: These hyperbolic threat inflations ignore that “Iran has not stated an intent to develop ICBMS,” according to the most recent Ballistic Missile Defense Report, and North Korea’s Taeopdong-2 has recently failed its third test flight (the only missile in the country’s arsenal that possibly has the range to reach the westernmost point of the continental US). Not to mention the time-proven effectiveness of nuclear deterrence.

Moreover, the GOP’s platform on missile defense ignores that the most severe danger posed by ballistic missiles is conventionally armed short and intermediate ranged variants. Unlike their nuclear counterparts, SRBMs and IRBMs may actually be used, likely by targeting U.S. overseas bases and hindering military access to critical regions during crisis or wartime. Politically, however, it is understandable that the GOP avoids the issue of theater missile defense given that the Administration has moved aggressively to establish such systems in the Middle East and East Asia.

Cybersecurity

Claim:  “The current Administration’s cyber security policies have failed to curb malicious actions by our adversaries, and no wonder, for there is no active deterrence protocol. The current deterrence framework is overly reliant on the development of defensive capabilities and has been unsuccessful in dissuading cyber-related aggression.”

Reality: This point of view advocates a path towards cyber security already being pursued. The administration has been moving at a steady pace toward greater development of offensive cyber capabilities. The United States has stood up Cyber Command and has begun equipping regional Combatant Commanders with offensive cyber capabilities. Concerning deterrence, the Pentagon is moving towards adjusting the cyber rules of engagement to allow for rapid response to cyber intrusions while it is simultaneously investing in “Plan X” – a potentially groundbreaking development program intended to help the U.S. military achieve cyber dominance. Here, however, the political angle is puzzling: why oppose the Obama Administration on ‘cyber offense’ in the wake of two reported major cyber-attacks conducted by the United States – Flame and Stuxnet?

China

Claim 1: “if China were to violate those principles [of peacefully settling the dispute of Taiwan’s status], the U.S., in accord with the Taiwan Relations Act, will help Taiwan defend itself.”

Reality: the Taiwan Relations Act makes no such obligation regarding US defense of Taiwan in the face of Chinese aggression -- it obligates the US only to sell the Island defensive arms and makes no reference to American responsibilities in the event of a cross-Strait war whatsoever. Furthermore, it is grotesquely unclear why the GOP would risk destabilizing the security situation in the Taiwan Strait while relations between Beijing and Taipei under Ma Ying-Jeou’s Administration are enjoying perhaps unprecedented stability.

Claim 2: The GOP  “condemn[s]” Beijing’s “destabilizing claims in the South China Sea.”

Reality: The GOP platform takes sides in the complex and multi-layered maritime claims in the region. However, taking sides in this conflict would embroil the United States in the deeply nationalistic disputes with potentially disastrous results. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has been seeking to prevent these disputes from spilling into conflict, while strongly supporting our allies in the region. Moreover, unless Washington is to risk war over the South China Sea, the value of opposing Chinese claims is unclear, making assuming these risks without any apparent payoff.

Strategy and Climate Change

Claim: “The current Administration’s most recent National Security Strategy reflects the extreme elements in its liberal domestic coalition…. the strategy subordinates our national security interests to environmental, energy, and international health issues, and elevates ‘climate change’ to the level of a ‘severe threat’ equivalent to foreign aggression.”

Reality: Climate change and resulting national security threats, have long been recognized by military and intelligence experts as a serious national security threat – not part of a “liberal domestic collation.” This is why DoD, the CIA, and the service branches have all begun to plan around the anticipated challenges. In 2008, under the George W. Bush presidency, the National Intelligence Council released its Global Trends 2025, which an analysis from the intelligence community on projected and anticipated threats released every five years. The report argues that global warming was one of three major threats that could destabilize the international system, warning that climate refugees, resource wars, and an increase in destructive weather events could all undermine American and international security.  Additionally, the Center for Naval Analyses has released a number of reports from their Military Advisory Board of retired generals and admirals on the national security implications of climate change and energy insecurity. In their seminal report 2007 report the Military Advisory Board writes, “Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents significant national security challenges for the United States. Accordingly, it is appropriate to start now to help mitigate the severity of some of these emergent challenges.”

Russia

Claim: The GOP will get more out of the U.S.-Russia relationship. On Russia the GOP platform makes the case that the United States and Russia have mutual interests. It states, “We do have common imperatives: ending terrorism, combating nuclear proliferation, promoting trade, and more.”

Reality: The party’s standard bearer, Mitt Romney, is creating a relationship with Russia that is adversarial, making it more difficult to work together to address mutual interests – the very point of the “reset.” Romney has been roundly criticized for calling Russia America’s “number one geopolitical foe” by national security experts including Colin Powell. However, his advisors doubled down on this view just yesterday. Sergey Kulik, director of the Institute of Contemporary Development, has an interesting perspective from Russia and how this can play out with U.S.-Russian relations. He writes:

“Any anti-Russia rhetoric coming from such an authoritative platform as the conventions could be actively used to further elevate anti-American rhetoric in the Russian media. Although the anti-American tone has somewhat abated recently, the United States has been a target of criticism by those seeking to justify a more hardline political course for Russia both domestically and externally…

In addition, work is under way on a revised Foreign Policy Concept of Russia, and the final document will be adjusted following the conclusion of the U.S. presidential campaign. If Russia is touched upon at either of the conventions in a negative or positive light, this could be reflected in the document. This concerns positions not only directly related to the United States, but also other foreign policy areas and priorities.”

Zombie Fact-Check, John McCain Edition Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Pity the poor fact-checkers. They work in good faith. And in the post-truth era it no longer seems to matter. This year’s national security debate has featured a number of egregious falsehoods and misreprentations. And it has featured their debunking by nonpartisan security experts and professional journalists. And it has featured them reappearing again, more times than on of Dan Drezner’s zombies.

 John McCain hits the highlights in yesterday’s Foreign Policy piece, and I boldly predict most of them will also appear in tonight’s convention speeches. Here’s your follow-along at home scorecard.

Declinism.

McCain: “We are now engaged in a great debate over whether America's core challenge is how to manage our own decline as a great power -- or how to renew our capacity to carry on our proud tradition of world leadership. “

Show me where, anywhere, Barack Obama or Joe Biden has ever said the U.S. is declining, or that our task is to manage it.

Waning U.S. influence.

McCain: “President Barack Obama has unfortunately pursued policies that are diminishing America's global prestige and influence.”

Pew Research Center:  Public opinion of the U.S. is up from the late Bush era in 12 of 16 countries surveyed. The four outliers are all Muslim countries.  

Pentagon spending/sequester.

McCain: “proceeding with nearly half a trillion dollars in cuts to our defense budget, while nearly $500 billion in additional defense cuts are looming under sequestration… the President is proceeding with vast cuts on defense.”

The Pentagon budget submitted to Congress this year actually forecasts a small net growth over ten years; the “half a trillion dollars in cuts” represent cuts to the previously-planned rate of increase. This is a cut like I promise you a 10% raise and then give you 5%. You can read factchecker agonizing over it here.

Half a trillion dollars certainly sounds “vast.” That sum over ten years represents about 10% of Pentagon spending. Compared to builddowns of 12-25% after World War II, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War, however, it’s pretty tame.

And then there’s sequester, which McCain implicitly and Romney explicitly have laid at the President’s door. However, both this year’s installment of the “half a trillion in cuts” and the possibility of an across-the-board, automatic cut to Pentagon spending were devised and enacted by bipartisan majorities in Congress, including… Paul Ryan and John McCain. The logic of how this is Obama’s fault still escapes me.

Selling out to Russia.

McCain: “across Central and Eastern Europe, where Vladimir Putin's Russia still casts a long shadow, but where many of our allies believe their national interests are being sacrificed by the administration's repeated, and largely unrequited, attempts to reset relations with Moscow. “

Requited:  Russia has allowed vital supply flights into Afghanistan, stopped sales of defense equipment to Iran and allowed unprecedented UN sanctions on Iran to proceed.

Supported: Meanwhile, Russia’s small Baltic neighbors got unprecedented security guarantees from NATO. Tonight, we will likely hear again the claim that the Administration “cancelled” a missile defense scheme with Poland and the Czech Republic. This is only true if you define “cancelled” as meaning “substituted a system that might actually work” (Poland) or “agreed not to deploy a system the Czech Parliament had made it clear it was not going to approve.”    

National Security Nite: Reinvention Convention, or Groundhog Day? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Today’s five-minute Romney appearance at the American Legion and convention appearances tonight from Senator John McCain and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice seem to be the sum total of what the party has planned on national security for the convention. Given this decision to downplay the issues, can the campaign back up Karl Rove’s boast that President Obama is easily vulnerable on national security? And does it have forward-looking policies for the security challengesahead?

The infighting among Romney’s national security advisers, documented by copious leaking to the New York Times and ForeignPolicy.com in the spring, doesn’t seem to have settled down. Indeed, stories intended to show how the team is operating smoothly instead feature anonymous backbiting.

It’s a Jungle in Here. But that’s nothing compared to the debates on national security policies outside the advisory team. The drafting sessions of the RNC platform saw amendments trying to roll back longstanding GOP support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Press reports say that Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), in his address to the convention, will call for cuts to the Pentagon budget and a mandatory audit, even as Romney, Ryan and their platform continue to call for massive increases in Pentagon spending. (Expect Rand Paul to be booed.)

Tone Deaf. Partisan and non-partisan experts wrote off Romney’s verbal gaffes in London and Jerusalem, and his campaign spokesman’s embarrassing loss of cool in Poland, as flukes. But the treading on diplomatic toes hasn’t stopped. After the platform appeared to break new ground in support for Taiwan and opposition to Chinese claims in the South China Sea, and astonishingly, lectured China that “The next lesson is that political and religious freedom lead to national greatness,” China’s state-controlled media slammed back in language that would almost work at a debate:

"It requires political vision as well as profound knowledge of Sino-U.S. relations as a whole, to make sensible policy recommendations about what are widely recognized as the most important bilateral ties in the world," the commentary states. "Romney apparently lacks both."

Then, too, there is the minor embarrassment of the GOP platform denouncing something called the “UN Convention on Women’s Rights,” which doesn’t actually exist.

Everything Old is New Again. Secretary Rice and Senator McCain both enjoy great personal respect from Americans. At the same time, there is no denying that Rice bears a heavy share of responsibility for the Bush Administration’s failures in Iraq and Afghanistan – as well as laying out a freedom and democracy agenda for the Middle East that the Bush Administration proved utterly unwilling to live up to. So it is surprising to see her as the personification of Romney’s national security policies – though she certainly personifies a Romney advisory team made up in overwhelming majority of Bush Administration alums.

McCain, for his part, has disagreed with party orthodoxy so many times over the years that it’s hard to imagine what his presence on the podium should be understood to mean. In 2008 he was a vocal opponent of torture and supporter of closing Guantanamo – neither position adopted by this year’s nominee. He has pushed Romney repeatedly, and thus far unsuccessfully, to follow his lead in advocating a no-fly zone for Syria. He voted for the Budget Control Act establishing the automatic sequestration, including Pentagon spending… of which Paul Ryan was the author. McCain now says he regrets his vote… what does Ryan say? McCain has forcefully condemned Muslim-baiting by former presidential candidate Michelle Bachman and other GOP luminaries, while Romney and Ryan have remained silent. McCain’s Foreign Policy preview of tonight’s speech picks up some of the Romney campaign’s most disingenuous arguments about sequestration, missile defense and leadership. But given McCain’s maverick status, his remarks indicate little or nothing about what Romney’s leadership would actually entail.

Will the Real Policy Please Stand Up? Meanwhile, the campaign’s positions on key issues have become, if this is possible, less clear than they were in the spring. Paul Ryan endorsed a 2014 pullout from Afghanistan, seeming to reverse his own statements of a few days earlier; the GOP platform opposes planned withdrawals of the surge troops this year but after waiting eight pages into the national security section to mention Afghanistan, remains silent on the ultimate fate of the U.S. mission there. This week campaign adviser Rich Williamson reiterated campaign criticism of the Obama Administration’s Syria policy. Other campaign advisers praised French government officials who called for military intervention. (Yes, you read that right.) So, as Syria mobilizes fighter jets against its citizens and the Administration says movement of Syria’s chemical weapons is a redline, does Romney support a no-fly zone? It seems not: But the Romney team struggled to draw clear distinctions between its policy and what the Obama administration is already doing. For now, the Romney camp is sticking to its calls for arming the rebels directly but not using U.S. military assets inside Syria. Last month, Williamson struggled mightily at a Brookings event to explain how a Romney Administration would pay for its proposed increases to Pentagon spending. This week, Republicans said that the 100,000 new troops would go first and foremost to staff the near-doubling in Navy shipbuilding Romney wants to institute. Even at 6,000 sailors per aircraft carrier, this would require 16 new carriers – more than we currently have active and the rest of the world currently has. And with next-generation carriers costing $15 billion each…

Republicans' Flimsy Case on National Security - Fantasy-Based Foreign Policy Posted by David Shorr

When you take a closer look at Republicans' national security case for Mitt Romney, it really is amazing to see them wish away all the trade-offs and messiness of the real world. They aren't so much debating foreign policy as indulging their own fantasies of getting the world's troublemakers to straighten up and fly right.

Most often their proposals and critiques rest on self-serving assumptions that count on other players bending to America's will. For all their faith in military strength, Republicans should pay closer heed to the military adage that "the enemy gets a vote." 

These are the same tendencies that have led Romney supporters to campaign against a complete straw man rather than the actual President Obama. Against all evidence, they want us to believe President Obama's spent the last four years giving away the store, a hangdog declinist commander in chief.

Selective Amnesia Over Bin Laden's Killing

I'm not sure whether to be offended or amused by the Republican critique's convenient omissions. Aside from hyperventilating over purportedly devastating leaks, the following strange sentence about cooperation with Pakistan is the closest that the RNC platform comes to talking about the killing of Bin Laden:

The working relationship between our two countries is a necessary, though sometimes difficult, benefit to both, and we look toward the renewal of historic ties that have frayed under the weight of international conflict.

"International conflict," now there's a euphemism if I ever saw one. Hey, know what really frayed US-Pakistani ties? The operation to take out Osama Freaking Bin Laden! This is what I mean by the Republicans' magically tradeoff-free critique -- but in this case oozing with irony. Here we have the opposition party commenting on recent friction between the US and Pakistan, but somehow without reference to the biggest source of friction: President Obama's decision to send in the Navy SEAL team.

Iran Sanctions? What Sanctions?

We're hearing a lot from Republicans this season about the progress of Iran's nuclear program. But if you relied on them for all your information, you wouldn't know that President Obama's policies and diplomatic efforts have put Iran under stricter sanctions and greater pressure than it's ever been. And President Obama's success on sanctions stems directly from the sensitivity to international perceptions -- publicly testing Iranian good faith through engagement, rounding up others' support once Tehran failed the test -- that his critics rail against.

But as I say, the international banking and energy sanctions spearheaded by the Obama administration are more stringent than any previous sets of sanctions. Speaking of President Bush and would-be nuclear proliferators, we don't hear much from Republicans about his record on nuclear nonproliferation. Did the Bush administration keep the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs from progressing? If I'm not mistaken, Iran and North Korea actually got closer to the bomb while President Bush was showing resolve and standing pat just as Republicans still advocate. Wait, no I've got that wrong. North Korea didn't just get closer; they actually got the bomb while the Bush administration was busy not negotiating with them.

Meanwhile, as President Obama keeps plugging away -- corraling international pressure against Iran, giving Tehran further chances to prove they want a diplomatic solution -- his political opponents keep taking pot shots at his policy. In their Iran policy critique, Republicans have sought to have it both ways. They predict diplomatic failure by the administration and profess to believe in force only as a last resort, yet offering no specifics for a more effective diplomatic approach.

Friends, Enemies, and Resets

This is one of Republicans' favorite slams against President Obama, the idea that he's been snubbing America's allies while ardently pursuing deals with unfriendly or hostile nations. It's a prominent theme of Senator John McCain's new piece over at Foreign Policy, but it appears as a main talking point in every Republican foreign policy argument.

And talking point is an apt term for it. As far as I can tell, they're really only talking about two or three friends. Most famously, Republicans claim that Obama has turned his back on Israel. This is belied not only by the record of extensive support the administration's provided Israel, detailed by former senior Pentagon official and campaign surrogate Colin Kahl, but by glowingly appreciative statements from Prime Minister Netanyahu own down. The other plank in this case was the administration's reconfiguration of the missile defense systems being built up at NATO's eastern and southeastern flanks -- by the way, a shift in emphasis toward proven technologies and greater capability against missiles from Iran. Administration critics are being a tad overdramatic with all their anguish about the consequences for Poland and the Czech Republic. In fact, they've had their own problem with the Czech Republic: getting the country's name correct, that is.

The Other Dangerous China Policy Posted by Bill R. French

As Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin has discussed, China Daily­ yesterday published an editorial commentary condemning Mitt Romney’s China policy. The commentary accused Romney of a “Cold War mentality” – by now a common trope in the Chinese government and media – and claimed his policies would “only lead to head-on confrontation between the two countries.”

Rogin’s reporting on the event logically included a brief mention of the recently leaked draft of the official GOP national convention platform for foreign policy. However, upon closer inspection, that platform is worse than even the most cynical observer might expect. By combining factual errors with extremely confrontational and escalatory policies, the platform suggests a fundamentally dangerous course for Sino-American relations.

If there is any doubt about the China Daily commentary in regards to Romney’s positions on China, that doubt is removed entirely if applied to the RNC’s prospective platform.

Taiwan Trouble

During  Ma Ying-Jeou’s Administration, cross-Strait relations  have warmed considerably since the instable years presided over by former President Chen Shui-Bian. This has led some commentators to observe that the cross-Strait outlook “appears more stable than they have been in more than sixty years.”

Yet, the draft RNC platform proposes to replace stability with political-military escalation, committing major factual errors in the process.

At the core of the trouble is that the document claims the United States is legally obligated to defend Taiwan, saying that “if China were to violate those principles [of peacefully settling the dispute of Taiwan’s status], the U.S., in accord with the Taiwan Relations Act, will help Taiwan defend itself.” But, in fact, the Taiwan Relations Act makes no such obligation regarding US defense of Taiwan in the face of Chinese aggression -- it obligates the US only to sell the Island defensive arms and makes no reference to American responsibilities in the event of a cross-Strait war whatsoever.

Parsing the RNC's national security platform Posted by Heather Hurlburt

POLITICO found what seems to be a close-to-final draft on the RNC's website. The national security section, titled "American Exceptionalism" is here.

Below I have gone through and blogged some of the more mendacious and ridiculous content. But what's the short take:  the Middle East, Israel and Iran sections are more reasonable than an observer of recent rhetoric from the Romney camp might expect. The adults -- who know they might have to govern, and that better policy options are exceedingly hard to come by -- are firmly in charge.

But they had to give up something to get that.  The document's tone and content will be offensive to both Chinese and Russians, as it puts into doubt the greatness of their civilizations. It will be ridiculed by those who know there are not "thousands of Middle Eastern terrorists" in Venezuela, that US Strategic Command believes our nuclear modernization efforts are fully sufficient, and that the potential budget sequestration will not touch military pay or billets. The absence of Japan, the European economic crisis, any mention of the links between the global security agenda and a global economic agenda.

The biggest absence, though, is any strategic sense of where the US is going or should try to go in the world. The document references Reagan a few times, and George W. Bush once -- what is the Romney/Ryan vision of the future? What, exactly, is that larger military for? How do we re-grow US influence and economic success overseas?

It is no surprise to anyone that platforms are full of dog whistles. Every paragraph of this one is, in some cases of contradictory dog whistles as the GOP tries to look forward and backward at the same time. Supporting women's advancement in the military and barring our service on combat is just one example. But the continuing need for the party to reconcile its libertarian, neocon, paleocon and modernist elements (by modernist I mean the need to obscure the plank which seems to pledge consideration of re-instating Don't Ask Don't Tell) means that the dogwhistles-to-strategic vision quotient is rather high.

I should add that I am delighted to see the relatively large sections covering trafficking in persons, AIDS and aid effectiveness.  They don't jibe with Paul Ryan's budget proposals to gut US diplomacy and development assistance. But I digress.

Fascinatingly, the first paragraph's definition of American exceptionalism -- "the conviction that our country holds a unique place and role in human history" -- is one that I agree with. In fact, I think it is tautological. There is no other United States. I would say that is a definition of American exceptionalism that even Ron Paul could love.  Hmmm.

Interestingly, the rest of the opening paragraph is a paean to "peace through strength," which the platform links to the Reagan era without mentioning the president. It also doesn't mention that the phrase "peace through strength" is a registered trademark of the American Security Council Foundation, which seems to exist to promote it.  But I'm sure the platform committee got the proper permissions.

Assorted highlights:

Military Keynesianism:  "The Republican Party is the advocate for a strong national defense as the pathway to peace, economic prosperity..."

Hippie-punching: "The current Administration's most recent National Security Strategy represents the extreme elements in its liberal domestic coalition." Would that be its embrace of drones? The Afghan transition? Both of which are supported by cross-partisan majorities of public opinion, and not the Democrats' left wing.

More hippie-punching: "The strategy subordinates our national security interests to environmental, energy, and international health issues." Wait, does the GOP not understand how energy is strategic? Also, the George W. Bush 2006 national security strategy has "human dignity" and "development" right up there with "fight terrorism." But we'll leave that for the professional fact-checkers.

First actual flat-out falsehood:  p. 4. The Admin has said sequester will not affect troop pay; there is no plan anywhere to separate from service "another 100,000 [troops] under sequester."

Second flat-out falsehood:  the next paragraph. When assessing whether the US manintenance and updating of the nuclear deterrent is adequate, are you gonna trust the GOP platform committee or the Pentagon's Strategic Command?

Third flat-out falsehood:  the Administration didn't "abandon" missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic -- the Czech Parliament made clear it wouldn't vote to approve the site, and the Administration put together an alternate plan.

Cybersecurity: if the Administration's approach is too defense, does that mean the GOP favors pre-emptive cyberwarfare?  It'd be good to know. Also, no mention of the bipartisan bill the Administration worked with Congress to pass to create a foundational cyber approach, which is being held up by conservatives who just didn't want to see a major achievement, despite their fellow Republicans who worked in good faith to write a compromise bill that had won grudging respect from industry and civil liberties groups alike.

Don't Ask Don't Tell and women in combat:  the platform pledges to maintain the ban on women from direct combat, which, they may or may not have noticed, has largely disappeared in practice thanks to the exigencies of counter-insurgency warfare. I will let the don't ask don't tell experts parse the following sentence, but I suspect anti-DADT activists think it means repeal:  "We affirm the cultural values which encourage selfless service and superiority in battle, and we oppose anything which might divide or weaken team cohesion, including intra-military special interest demonstrations." I wish I thought that last phrase meant a Romney Administration would get after the extremist brand of Protestantism which has taken over so much of the military chaplaincy and made non-evangelicals, and commanding officers, very worried about team cohesion.  I also wish they just had the guts to say what they think the cultural values which encourage selfless service are.

Oh, the next graph affirms that the GOP will fight against efforts to ban Bibles from military installations (wonder if they will fight for Torahs and Korans too?) and enforce the Defense of Marriage Act in the military. So much for states' rights.

The UN section explicitly rejects a number of treaties that inside-the-Beltway folks thought they could garner GOP support for, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities -- both of whose inclusion surprises me a bit -- as well as GOP red meat such as Law of the Sea and the Convention on the End of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (which the drafters appear not to know the name of).

Prize for overstatement:  "The war or drugs and the war on terror have become a single enterprise." (p. 11)

First region-specific section:  Latin America. Does anybody really believe that "thousands of Middle Eastern terrorists" hold Venezuelan visas? Thousands?

Also, it's touching that the GOP "rejects any dynastic succession" in Cuba, given that Raul Castro has already de facto taken over from Fidel? This reminds me of the story that, upon hearing that the New England transcendentalist Margaret Fuller was fond of exclaiming, "I accept the universe!" the British writer Thomas Carlyle responded:  "Gad! She'd better."

First mention of President Reagan by name:  p. 3

First/only mention of President George W. Bush: praise for PEPFAR, his AIDS program. Let me say that this is fully deserved. Africa, however, deserves better than mentions only in the context of AIDS and terrorism.

First mention of Afghanistan: p. 12 of 16. First mention of a future strategy for Afghanistan, or a justification for the current troop levels:  never.

Order of one-paragraph discussions of Taiwan and China:  Taiwan first.

Sentence that will have the Chinese ruling classes rolling on the floor laughing:  "the next lesson is that political and religious freedom leads to national greatness." Umm, you can like it or not, but can you really argue that China is not already a great nation, based on several thousand years of advances while the ancestors of Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and yours truly were running around the British Isles in skins painting our faces blue?

First mention of Europe (apart from a throwaway of NATO next to the UN, which for the GOP is a real insult): p. 13, featuring one sentence on NATO and a completely random reference to "ongoing reconciliation" in Northern Ireland, but no tribute to President Clinton for his role in helping midwife that peace agreement.

Second embarrassing reference to one of the world's great civilizations:  the Russians "seek to reestablish their rich national identity." (Note to GOP platform committee:  you should get out more often. The Mariinsky Ballet, for example, will be in DC in the next year. It doesn't need any re-establishing.)

Middle East Peace:  given all that has come before, and what was reported about efforts to eliminate the two-state solution from the platform, this section strikes me as pretty benign. It doesn't break any new ground that I can see in GOP Israel-hugging. I salute the anonymous GOP-ers who fought to keep this paragraph the way it is.

Changing Middle East:  again, I salute whomever exercised adult supervision here. There is no discernable Syria policy, excoriation of fallen dictators but no mention of our current allied dictators (Bahrain, anyone?), no pledges of additional financial support for states in transition. But there's nothing horribly problematic either. In particular, there's no mention of the Muslim Brotherhood, which surprises me given its popularity with the Bolton wing of the party.

Then, as the very last section in the national security section, we come to Iran. It says... absolutely nothing. The next president must "retain all options."

First mention of GOP members of Congress who negotiated sequestration and voted for it: never.

Give Romney Foreign Policy Adviser an 'F' for Cribbing from Obama Policy Posted by David Shorr

How can we tell the Romney campaign foreign policy platform proposes things the Obama administration is already doing, while masquerading as a starkly different approach? Because the Romney camp's Stephen Hadley, who was national security adviser in the GW Bush White House, is so transparent about it in his Washington Post op-ed on Syria last week. 

First of all, there's no denying that the Assad regime's barbaric attacks on their own people have wreaked horrendous death and suffering on ordinary Syrians and leave the regime without a shred of legitimacy. It's obvious that Assad should go and Syrians should have a chance to build a new political order that addresses their needs and aspirations. For Americans and the rest of the outside world looking on in horror, it's one thing to know generally what sort of outcome we want and another thing to get there.

So the real question for a US administration (and would-be policy makers) concerns what real leverage outside powers have and how it can be used for the intended aims, without too many unintended consequences. As with so many challenges on the foreign policy agenda, the Obama administration is working the problem and navigating the pitfalls -- from the splits within the international community and Syrian opposition itself, to the Al Qaeda-linked elements involved in the insurgency. 

In an election year, and for the politics of foreign policy more broadly, this poses another problem. Over and over again, we see the Romney camp wanting it both ways. They want to represent a bolder foreign policy, with more steely resolve, but they won't really deal with the difficult trade-offs. They can see the same difficulties and considerations that shape President Obama's policies, and they want to slam his policies without being bold enough to set aside the constraining factors. On Iran, this is the underlying reason why Team Romney decries the failure of sanctions and diplomacy but won't call for war. They don't really have an alternative, because it isn't easy coming up with one.

With all that as background, the Hadley piece on Syria shows how Romney's advisers contort themselves into pretzels. Here's how Hadley starts off his bullet point list of recommendations:

To avoid this looming debacle, the United States needs a much more active Syria policy. Necessary steps include:

●Accelerate efforts to help develop a more unified and inclusive Syrian opposition with an inclusive, cross-sectarian message. U.S. officials have made a significant effort and found it frustrating work, but there are signs of progress. 

Okay, the Obama administration should adopt a "much more active" policy of the significant effort they're already making. Huh? Is this a critique or a pep talk? For Hadley's first three bullet points, it's clear just from the verbs he uses that he's calling for a continuation of the current policy. (Something something, more active!) In addition to accelerating efforts with the Syrian opposition, Hadley wants to "increase" vetting of the opposition by US intelligence and "expand" non-lethal support. Then there's

●Work closely with the Syrian opposition and regional allies to prepare for a post-Assad Syria. Include steps to secure Syria’s chemical weapons. A good place to start would be the U.S.-Turkey collaboration that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced in Ankara last week.

Yeah, use that new thingy you've set up. More actively. 

Look, there may indeed be ways to improve on the administration's current efforts on Syria. There's probably a version of Hadley's op-ed that, coming from the kinds of policy advocacy groups I know and love, would represent solid work. Heck, it's probably already been published several times over. But in the great 2012 debate over the direction of US foreign policy, when Hadley alludes to all the things Obama is already doing, he only highlights what thin gruel the Republicans are offering as an alternative.

White House photo by Eric Draper