Mitt Romney's European Tour

The consensus appears to be that it's a good thing that "Americans don't care about foreign policy" because the world tour that Romney's backers were touting as how he would demonstrate his capacity and leadership to the world, and leave Obama green with jealousy, has turned into a seemingly endless series of unforced errors.

British political cartoonists don't seem at all inclined to give politicians the benefit of the doubt, and unflattering depictions are par for the course. But I think Steve Bell is pretty much capturing the European impression of Romney.

People tell me that Romney is a man of intelligence, although clearly not a man who thinks or understand a whit about foreign policy issues (or what it means to punch a clock, get his hands dirty, worry about being able to pay rent...). If I take their word for it, the inevitable conclusion is that Romney believes everybody else is a rube, that his supporters are not only too stupid to tell when he's lying, they'll cheer his every lie, defend his every misrepresentation, dismiss even the most obvious mistake. So far it's working, so there remains a significant possibility that Willard "Mitt for Brains" Romney will be keeping political cartoonists happy for a long time.

McCain On Achievable Military Objectives

David Brooks gushes over McCain's speeches:

Barack Obama says: “John McCain is determined to carry out four more years of George Bush’s failed policies.” Obama is a politician, so it’s normal that he’d choose to repeat the lines that some of his followers want to hear. But before people buy that argument, I’d ask them to read three speeches.

One from 1995, one from 2001, and the latest one? Or would observing McCain repeat himself undermine Brooks' argument that the latest speech is "as personal, nuanced and ambitious a speech as any made by a presidential candidate this year"? (Come on, David. We know you favor Brooks over Obama, but really.)

But I'm not posting this to make fun of Brooks. (Well, not just to make fun of Brooks.) Following up on my last post about McCain's Iraq policy, it was interesting to see Brooks emphasize this:

McCain argued that Lebanese society, as it existed then, could not be stabilized and unified by American troops. He made a series of concrete observations about the facts on the ground. Lebanon was in a state of de facto partition. The Lebanese Army would not soon be strong enough to drive out the Syrians. The American presence would not intimidate the Syrians into negotiating.

“I do not foresee obtainable objectives in Lebanon.” He concluded. “I believe the longer we stay, the more difficult it will be to leave, and I am prepared to accept the consequences of our withdrawal.”

If we're going to hold that up as an example of McCain's foreign policy brilliance it's fair to ask, what makes Iraq different? Under what circumstances will we hear a similar concession on Iraq, instead of the talk of being there for a century or more (after peace miraculously breaks out).

McCain offered to build new pillars for that system — a League of Democracies, a new nuclear nonproliferation regime and a successor to the Kyoto treaty. In stabilizing Asia and the Middle East, he would rely more on democracies like Turkey, India, Israel and Iraq, and less on Mubarak and Musharraf.

This is supposed to reassure me? We're going to stabilize Iraq by relying upon Turkey, Israel and... Iraq? How would that work - would Turkey occupy the Kurdish north, with Israel, um.... And we're going to stamp out support for Al Qaeda in Pakistan by turning the matter over to India? (Does McCain envision armed incursions by India into Pakistani territory to "take out" Al Qaeda camps? While Pakistan sits idly by?)

McCain stated,

“We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact - a League of Democracies - that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests,” McCain said, reading from prepared texts.

Because democracies are always enlightened and always have common values, goals and shared interests, right? Will McCain be inviting Hamas to join the league if it continues to win elections in the Palestinian territories? Will Hezbollah get to join if it wins a majority of the seats in Lebanon's parliament? Or if that's too much of a reductio ad absurdem, where does Venezuela sign up? Couldn't we reasonably interpret this proposal as McCain's pandering to people who want us to move away from the United Nations, and toward an international organization we can better control?

Bush Administration Silliness

The Bush Administration knows quite well that there are foreign leaders - many foreign leaders, including leaders of long-time allies - who would love to see him go down in flames in the upcoming election. They also know that, not only in the name of good relations but also in the interest of not inspiring trademark Bush Administration retaliation, those leaders are unlikely to publicly endorse Kerry. Yet when Kerry speaks these facts, they try to depict him as a liar?

Here's a suggestion - Bush should simply demand that all foreign leaders publicly endorse him, and see who (other than Tony Blair) takes him up on the offer.

Comments