Below is the text of the letter that I sent a few days ago to the editor of the Washington Times in response to Guy Taylo’rs completely wrong article about Mitt Romney’s foreign policy:
Guy Taylor’s July 1st article, “Romney has no intention of making frenemies”, is so full of huge factual errors that, even though I’m not in any way connected to the Romney campaign, I feel compelled to respond.
Taylor says this of Gov. Romney’s foreign policy statements: Such assertions offer a broad-stroke outline of how the Romney camp thinks U.S. foreign policy should be adjusted but sheds little light on what, precisely, Mr. Romney would do differently. More neutral analysts, not tied to the Romney campaign, say this is his weak point.”
This is incorrect, and what ‘neutral analysts’ does Taylor quote? Brian Kotulis of the ‘Center for American Progress’ and Joseph Nye. The CAP is a hardline leftist “think-tank” established and financed by George Soros. It represents the far left. It is as biased against Romney, Republicans, and conservatives as one can get. It is anything but neutral.
Joseph Nye is a strident liberal, a former Clinton Administation official and, according to TWT’s own Bill Gertz, the leader of the “benign China” school of thought within the US government and political class, a school that still permeates American policy thinking. Like CAP ‘analysts’, he is hardly credible on foreign policy issues. Romney has said clearly what he would do differently. For example, on Israel, he would not force Jerusalem to go back to indefensible pre-1967 armistice lines (they were not borders, BTW), and on Iran, he would deploy the missile defense system the Bush Administration planned for Poland and the Czech Republic, instead of promising a possible future system that might never be deployed, is based on nonexistent “Aegis Ashore” technology, would need many years to mature, and, per Obama’s own Defense Science Board, ‘is simply not credible’. He would also deploy a third carrier group that CENTCOM commander Gen. Mattis recently requested but was denied.
Taylor also mocks Romney’s goal of spending 4% of GDP on defense and falsely asserts that under President Obama’s plans defense spending would shrink to 4.6% of GDP by 2015. This is wrong. 4.6% of GDP is what America spends now on its military, counting both the base defense budget and war costs. Romney’s goal pertains only to the base defense budget, which currently stands at just 3.59% of GDP. And, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, under Obama’s plan, the core defense budget will actually shrink (per the Budet Control Act) to below 3% of GDP by 2015 while under sequestration (which Obama is quite happy to let happen and has threatened to veto any attempts to cancel it) it will shrink to just above 2% of GDP. At the same time, OCO spending will continue to decline and eventually disappear.
In fact, the BPC says that even under Paul Ryan’s budget plan defense will shrink to below 3% of GDP, albeit not until the late 2010s. So under no scenario will defense be at 4.6% of GDP by 2015. Guy Taylor’s assertion is a blatant lie. Taylor also falsely calls Romney’s other foreign policy stances “aggressive”. He lists his call to label China as a currency manipulator and characterization of Russia as “America’s #1 geopolitical foe”. But Obama’s won Treasury Department has called China a currency manipulator (which it indeed is, devaluing the yuan to boost exports and undercut US businesses) and America’s trade relationship with China is a one-way street. As for Russia, it has recently staged huge exercises nearby Alaskan airspace, involving strategic nuclear-capable bombers, fighters, tankers, and AWACSes (it says it was practicing “attacking the enemy” – that could’ve meant only the US), and continues to back anti-American regimes around the world – from Caracas, to Havana, to Damascus, to Tehran. If that isn’t a foe, then the word “foe” has no meaning.
Guy Taylor’s article is egregiously wrong on the facts.
Yours sincerely, Zbigniew Mazurak”
I’d like to add that new information has emerged. For example, on July 4th, two Russian bombers AGAIN entered the ADIZ and tested NORAD’s fighter fleet and response procedures in a Cold War manner. And, according to Bill Gertz:
“Russian Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Vladimir Deryabin, told reporters in Moscow last month that the arctic strategic war games “practice destruction of enemy air defenses and strategic facilities.””
““It’s becoming very obvious that Putin is testing Obama and his national security team,” McInerney told the Free Beacon. “These long-range aviation excursions are duplicating exercises I experienced during the height of the Cold War when I command the Alaska NORAD region.
McInerney said the Bear H flights are an effort by the Russians to challenge U.S. resolve, something he noted is “somewhat surprising as Obama is about to make a unilateral reduction of our nuclear forces as well as major reductions in our air defense forces.””
So yes, Romney was absolutely right: Russia is, arguably, America’s #1 geopolitical foe, and a huge security threat to the US, one that is growing everyday.
And Russia is just an example of an issue that Romney would handle VERY DIFFERENTLY from Obama if elected. Israel, as stated above, is another. China is another: Romney would designate China as a currency manipulator, something that Obama has refused to do, on his first day as President. On the Falklands issue, a Romney Administration would never backstab Britain and never side with Argentina’s socialist regime that is propping up the issue solely to divert the Argentine people’s attention away from its disastrous economic policies. And of course, a Romney Administration would never backstab America’s loyal allies such as the Czech Republic and Poland (where Romney might visit this summer). And if elected, he’ll visit Israel as President, something that Obama still hasn’t done despite being President for almost 3.5 years for now.
Face it, Mr Taylor. Face it, folks. On foreign policy, Romney is VASTLY superior to Obama. Put up or shut up.