#1Oct 9th, 2012
Romney and his Foreign Policy – Does he have one- that does not change – one where he disagrees with Obama then supports it.
The next Presidential debate is on Foreign Policy – Who will get their repsective butts handed to them -Romney or Obama - `6 Oct – Foreign and Domestic Policy
Link to a variety of articles
Mitt Romney | Foreign Policy
The Battle for Mitt Romney's Soul - By Danielle Pletka, Joshua Treviño, and Justin Logan | Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy asked three smart conservatives of different stripes to ****yze Mitt Romney's big foreign-policy address, and tell us which wing of the Republican Party is winning the battle for Romney's soul. Here's what they told us:
Mitt Romney’s foreign policy speech: A leadership moment? - The Washington Post
What the speech didn’t include were many new specifics about his overall views on foreign policy, though that’s hardly surprising. Weeks before the election, it’s the context of the remarks rather than their content that candidates prioritize. We did not get major revelations of how, exactly, Romney plans to “recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state” and succeed with Middle East negotiations when he was filmed earlier this year telling donors he planned to “kick the ball down the field” when it comes to significant action in the region. We did not get more detail on how Romney intends to pay for an expansion of the military without significantly adding to the national debt.
What we did get was more ridicule of the infamous “lead from behind” philosophy that Republicans love to associate with Obama. We got the nominee standing in front of a room full of uniformed soldiers speaking with confidence on foreign policy issues. And as for new details, we got a little bit of news that he would name one U.S. official to get control of “all assistance efforts in the greater Middle East” and a vow to build “15 ships per year, including three submarines.”
Defense Budget | The Best Defense
Best Defense senior number cruncher
During last week's debate, President Obama said several times that Governor Romney would increase defense spending by $2 trillion. Romney didn't protest. Obama's claim is accurate, but the underlying issue goes far beyond arithmetic. It is really about strategic risk and national priorities. The candidates' differing visions for defense spending represent the most significant contrast on national security policy in the 2012 election.
DOD's 2013 base budget excluding war funds is $525 billion, which equals 3.3 percent of GDP. Under Obama's plan, it will continue to grow modestly in future years. Romney has said that he wants to reverse the Obama-era cuts, return to the 2010 plan crafted by Robert Gates, and set the goal of spending 4 percent of GDP on defense. Those three objectives are different, so he'll have some wiggle room should he become president.
Plenty of War Clouds But No Daylight in Governor Romney's Speech - By Daniel Levy | The Middle East Channel
Governor Romney's foreign policy address to the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) today focused almost exclusively on the broader Middle East region. The speech was predictably light on the policy details of what a Romney presidency would actually do differently and just as predictably heavy in its finger-wagging at President Barack Obama's supposed failure of leadership. True, the "Mitt hearts Israel" parts of the speech were even more to be expected: then again those barely belong in the category of "foreign" policy.
Romney's foreign policy twilight zone - CNN.com
The critiques of Romney's foreign policy are just as incoherent as Romney's foreign policy | FP Passport
As my colleague Dan Drezner notes today, excerpts released ahead of Mitt Romney's big foreign-policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute this morning suggest that the Republican candidate isn't going to be rolling out much new policy content in his address. The problem, Drezner adds, is that Romney's rhetoric on international affairs has been pretty opaque so far:
If one pushes past the overheated rhetoric, then you discover that Romney wants a lot of the same ends as Barack Obama -- a stable, peaceful and free Middle East, for example.* But that's not shocking -- any major party president will want the same ends.* The differenes are in the*means through which a president will achieve those ends.* And -- in op-ed after op-ed, in speech after speech -- Romney either elides the means*altogether, mentions means that the Obama administration is already using, or just says the word "resolve" a lot.* That's insufficient.*
But if Romney's foreign-policy views have been incoherent, the Obama campaign's criticisms of Romney's positions have been no less perplexing. Simply put, team Obama can't seem to decide whether the president's challenger is the second coming of Barack Obama or George W. Bush -- or a different beast entirely: a blundering buffoon or possibly an inveterate flip-flipper.
The case for vagueness | FP Passport
The next Presidential debate is on Foreign Policy – Who will get their repsective butts handed to them -Romney or Obama - `6 Oct – Foreign and Domestic Policy
Link to a variety of articles
Mitt Romney | Foreign Policy
The Battle for Mitt Romney's Soul - By Danielle Pletka, Joshua Treviño, and Justin Logan | Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy asked three smart conservatives of different stripes to ****yze Mitt Romney's big foreign-policy address, and tell us which wing of the Republican Party is winning the battle for Romney's soul. Here's what they told us:
Mitt Romney’s foreign policy speech: A leadership moment? - The Washington Post
What the speech didn’t include were many new specifics about his overall views on foreign policy, though that’s hardly surprising. Weeks before the election, it’s the context of the remarks rather than their content that candidates prioritize. We did not get major revelations of how, exactly, Romney plans to “recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state” and succeed with Middle East negotiations when he was filmed earlier this year telling donors he planned to “kick the ball down the field” when it comes to significant action in the region. We did not get more detail on how Romney intends to pay for an expansion of the military without significantly adding to the national debt.
What we did get was more ridicule of the infamous “lead from behind” philosophy that Republicans love to associate with Obama. We got the nominee standing in front of a room full of uniformed soldiers speaking with confidence on foreign policy issues. And as for new details, we got a little bit of news that he would name one U.S. official to get control of “all assistance efforts in the greater Middle East” and a vow to build “15 ships per year, including three submarines.”
Defense Budget | The Best Defense
Best Defense senior number cruncher
During last week's debate, President Obama said several times that Governor Romney would increase defense spending by $2 trillion. Romney didn't protest. Obama's claim is accurate, but the underlying issue goes far beyond arithmetic. It is really about strategic risk and national priorities. The candidates' differing visions for defense spending represent the most significant contrast on national security policy in the 2012 election.
DOD's 2013 base budget excluding war funds is $525 billion, which equals 3.3 percent of GDP. Under Obama's plan, it will continue to grow modestly in future years. Romney has said that he wants to reverse the Obama-era cuts, return to the 2010 plan crafted by Robert Gates, and set the goal of spending 4 percent of GDP on defense. Those three objectives are different, so he'll have some wiggle room should he become president.
Plenty of War Clouds But No Daylight in Governor Romney's Speech - By Daniel Levy | The Middle East Channel
Governor Romney's foreign policy address to the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) today focused almost exclusively on the broader Middle East region. The speech was predictably light on the policy details of what a Romney presidency would actually do differently and just as predictably heavy in its finger-wagging at President Barack Obama's supposed failure of leadership. True, the "Mitt hearts Israel" parts of the speech were even more to be expected: then again those barely belong in the category of "foreign" policy.
Romney's foreign policy twilight zone - CNN.com
The critiques of Romney's foreign policy are just as incoherent as Romney's foreign policy | FP Passport
As my colleague Dan Drezner notes today, excerpts released ahead of Mitt Romney's big foreign-policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute this morning suggest that the Republican candidate isn't going to be rolling out much new policy content in his address. The problem, Drezner adds, is that Romney's rhetoric on international affairs has been pretty opaque so far:
If one pushes past the overheated rhetoric, then you discover that Romney wants a lot of the same ends as Barack Obama -- a stable, peaceful and free Middle East, for example.* But that's not shocking -- any major party president will want the same ends.* The differenes are in the*means through which a president will achieve those ends.* And -- in op-ed after op-ed, in speech after speech -- Romney either elides the means*altogether, mentions means that the Obama administration is already using, or just says the word "resolve" a lot.* That's insufficient.*
But if Romney's foreign-policy views have been incoherent, the Obama campaign's criticisms of Romney's positions have been no less perplexing. Simply put, team Obama can't seem to decide whether the president's challenger is the second coming of Barack Obama or George W. Bush -- or a different beast entirely: a blundering buffoon or possibly an inveterate flip-flipper.
The case for vagueness | FP Passport
