The previously credible WashingtonTimes newspaper has published yet another garbage Romney hit piece by the leftist journalist Guy Taylor. It’s essentially a litany of false claims by Taylor and he extremely leftist “analysts” he asks for comment, while devoting little space to the Romney spokesman’s words conservative experts such as the Heritage Foundation’s James Phillips.
He calls “peace through strength” a “mantra” and Chatham House’s Xenia Darmany calls it a “doctrine” that might’ve made sense during the Cold War. She furthermore falsely claims that:
“Foreign policy challenges today ignore borders, are often led not by states but non-states, and are often intangible, for example, energy limitations, environmental issues, pandemics and terrorism.”
Firstly, “peace through strength” is far more than a “mantra”, a “slogan”, or an “ideology”. It is a specific policy, or rather set of policies, and has been proven to work magnificently everytime it was tried, most recently during the Reagan years when the US won a bloodless victory over the Soviet Union. As history has shown throughout millennia, military strength used wisely guarantees peace and security, while military weakness only invites aggression, thus causing death and destruction. The twin policies of appeasement and unilateral disarmament that Obama has followed and intends to continue to follow have failed abysmally on his watch and everytime they were tried.
Secondly, contrary to Xenia Darmandy’s lie, peace through strength is always relevant, always works, and today it is even MORE relevant and MORE needed than during the Cold War. Contrary to her false claims, the vast majority of today’s foreign policy challenges are caused by STATES, not by non-state actors. These challenges include Russian bullying of America’s allies and aggressive, confrontational behavior towards America itself, as well as Russia’s military buildup; China’s huge military buildup and aggressive, confrontational policy towards America and its Pacific allies; Iran’s continued development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles; North Korea’s continued development of the same weapons; and Hugo Chavez is stirring up trouble in the Western Hemisphere.
THESE are the biggest foreign policy challenges for the US, and against these threats and in the current era, ONLY a policy of peace through strength – which means, first and foremost, having an uncontested, strong military – will work.
Even terrorism is mostly a STATE-caused threat, because the vast majority of terrorist groups in the world (including Hamas, Hezbollah, and FARC) are state-sponsored.
As for the false claim that “When it comes down to details, they say, the foreign policy the Republican ultimately will pursue is unlikely to stray far from Mr. Obama’s or those of his predecessors”, that claim is also utterly false. If elected, Mitt Romney will likely pursue a FAR different foreign policy than Barack Obama.
Obama has pursued utterly failed twin policies of unilateral disarmament (conventional and nuclear) and appeasement of America’s enemies, from Putinist Russia, to Communist China, to Iran, to Venezuela. Romney will end all of that. He will review and possibly trash the failed New START treaty. He, together with Congress, will reverse Obama’s massive defense cuts. He will rebuild the US military and greatly increase the Navy’s size. He will condition and ultimately privatize foreign aid instead of it being a free handout to foreign countries. He will label China as a currency manipulator. He will also make sure that Iran does not obtain a uclear weapon, even if it means using force at some point. He will also treat Israel and its leaders respectfully, build an effective missile defense system in the US and in Europe, and refuse to appease Putinist Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, or anyone else.
The claim by Gordon Adams (the architect of Bill Clinton’s disastrous defense cuts) that “Romney is a guy saying nothing but with an impressive delivery. He’s holding his own without being forced into the details because in the details, he’s out of his depth.” is also a blatant lie.
Romney has actually given many details about his planned foreign and defense policy, especially regarding Europe, Russia, and naval affairs (as well as running the DOD), and he can discuss details quite competently and quite comfortably.
His advisors are not “all over the map”, although they do hold diverging views on some issues. But this merely shows Romney as being open to different viewpoints and capable of weighing them.
John Bolton, BTW, is not a neoconservative and he personally rejects the label. As do I.
“While Mr. Obama has withdrawn U.S. forces from the heart of the Middle East in Iraq, he has kept up a ubiquitous drone war against suspected terrorists across the region and has green-lighted a variety of clandestine military operations, including the one that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.”
This claim is meaningless. Involving America in new, murky, clandestine wars across the Middle East does not advance America’s interest or national security; in fact, it does the contrary. And terrorism, as I already said, is hardly the biggest, or even one of the biggest, national security threats facing the country. Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are. Fighting suspected terrorists is no substitute for a strong military or for standing up to Putin, Chinese Communists, North Korea, and Iran.
And yes, Obama is the guy who did away with “peace through strength” and replaced it with appeasement and massive defense cuts, starting with killing over 50 crucial weapon programs in 2009 and 2010, through the New START treaty (which obligates only the US, not Russia, to cut its nuclear arsenal), and culminating with tne massive defense cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act, including sequestration, which was Obama’s idea and which he insisted on being included in the BCA.
Shame on the Washington Slimes for publishing this piece of trash by Taylor, and shame on Taylor for giving more weight and space to extremely leftist, ex-Clinton-admin hacks, who were the authors of utterly failed policies during the 1990s, than to right-wing analysts.