WE RECENTLY suggested that Obama's foreign policy was nowhere near as
liberal as many liberals believed. This view has now been confirmed by
the Washington Post's conservative editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt
FRED HIATT, WASHINGTON POST - [Barack Obama and Mitt Romney] have laid
out their foreign policy visions in parallel articles, released prior to
publication in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs. And after you
cut through some of their campaign rhetoric, here's what you find:
(1) The two candidates' programs are strikingly similar to each other.
(2) Both are strikingly similar to Bush administration policy.
(3) And both, far from retreating to isolationism in the face of Iraq
and other challenges, set forth their own wildly ambitious calls for
American leadership and the promotion of American values. "Boldness" is
an operative word for both of them.
Obama begins: "After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would
be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized
anew."
Romney writes: "In the aftermath of World War II and with the coming of
the Cold War, members of the 'greatest generation' united America and
the free world around shared values and actions that changed history. .
. . Our times call for equally bold leadership."
The two differ in some respects, of course. Romney puts more emphasis on
combating radical Islam and less on promoting freedom. Obama dwells more
on Bush's failures and the value of diplomacy and endorses a "phased
withdrawal" of U.S. troops from Iraq. But even there, the differences
are not as stark as the candidates would like them to appear. Obama
would maintain in Iraq enough troops "to protect American personnel and
facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al
Qaeda."
And the similarities dwarf the differences. Both want bigger, not
smaller, armed forces: Obama calls for an additional 92,000 ground
troops, Romney for 100,000.
Obama calls for a doubling of foreign aid; Romney wants a Marshall
Plan-like "Partnership for Prosperity and Progress" that would support
schools, microcredit, the rule of law, human rights, health care and the
free market in Islamic states.
Romney says that "the jihadist threat is the defining challenge of our
generation," as real as the threat that was posed by Nazi Germany and
Stalin's Soviet Union, and he promises an appropriately sized response.
Obama, albeit using slightly different terms, agrees: "To defeat al
Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and
twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist
alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from
Djibouti to Kandahar.". . .
In both cases, the criticism is not that Bush took on too much but that
he accomplished too little. "We are a unique nation, and there is no
substitute for our leadership," says Romney. Agrees Obama: "We can be
this America again. . . . [A]n America that battles immediate evils,
promotes an ultimate good, and leads the world once more."
If Iraq-weary voters are looking for someone who will call on America to
"come home," they won't find that candidate here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/03/
AR2007060300951.html
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
liberal as many liberals believed. This view has now been confirmed by
the Washington Post's conservative editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt
FRED HIATT, WASHINGTON POST - [Barack Obama and Mitt Romney] have laid
out their foreign policy visions in parallel articles, released prior to
publication in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs. And after you
cut through some of their campaign rhetoric, here's what you find:
(1) The two candidates' programs are strikingly similar to each other.
(2) Both are strikingly similar to Bush administration policy.
(3) And both, far from retreating to isolationism in the face of Iraq
and other challenges, set forth their own wildly ambitious calls for
American leadership and the promotion of American values. "Boldness" is
an operative word for both of them.
Obama begins: "After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would
be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized
anew."
Romney writes: "In the aftermath of World War II and with the coming of
the Cold War, members of the 'greatest generation' united America and
the free world around shared values and actions that changed history. .
. . Our times call for equally bold leadership."
The two differ in some respects, of course. Romney puts more emphasis on
combating radical Islam and less on promoting freedom. Obama dwells more
on Bush's failures and the value of diplomacy and endorses a "phased
withdrawal" of U.S. troops from Iraq. But even there, the differences
are not as stark as the candidates would like them to appear. Obama
would maintain in Iraq enough troops "to protect American personnel and
facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al
Qaeda."
And the similarities dwarf the differences. Both want bigger, not
smaller, armed forces: Obama calls for an additional 92,000 ground
troops, Romney for 100,000.
Obama calls for a doubling of foreign aid; Romney wants a Marshall
Plan-like "Partnership for Prosperity and Progress" that would support
schools, microcredit, the rule of law, human rights, health care and the
free market in Islamic states.
Romney says that "the jihadist threat is the defining challenge of our
generation," as real as the threat that was posed by Nazi Germany and
Stalin's Soviet Union, and he promises an appropriately sized response.
Obama, albeit using slightly different terms, agrees: "To defeat al
Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and
twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist
alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from
Djibouti to Kandahar.". . .
In both cases, the criticism is not that Bush took on too much but that
he accomplished too little. "We are a unique nation, and there is no
substitute for our leadership," says Romney. Agrees Obama: "We can be
this America again. . . . [A]n America that battles immediate evils,
promotes an ultimate good, and leads the world once more."
If Iraq-weary voters are looking for someone who will call on America to
"come home," they won't find that candidate here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/03/
AR2007060300951.html
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment