Spirited debate yields few foreign policy differences
Here's one prediction about the election that you can take to the bank: Sometime in the next four years, the president — whoever it turns out to be — will face a foreign policy crisis that's not on the radar right now, and his choices will affect the lives of countless Americans.
That was true in 2000, when a terrorist attack on New York and Washington was unthinkable. It was true in 2004, when no candidate spoke of a looming global financial crisis. And it was true in 2008, when no one foresaw the collapse of Arab dictatorships that had been U.S. allies for generations. Yet those events produced three wars, a near-depression
Obama, Romney spar but views converge
and an abrupt turn in history — both promising and menacing — in the world's most dangerous region.
So safe to say, the details of Monday night's spirited foreign policy debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney — the last in the three-debate series — matter less than the candidates’ more general approach to protecting peace and prosperity, ultimately the benchmark for judging presidents.
On policy specifics, the gap between the candidates is not large, and if anything it shrank Monday night.
Despite attempts by the candidates to draw distinctions, their debate exposed few. Both intend to end the war in Afghanistan by 2014, and Romney appeared to abandon his longstanding caveat about consulting generals first. Both insist they will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Both are committed to the war on terror. And both say, credibly, that they'll be tough with foreign competitors while promoting free trade.
This overlap is a good thing. Continuity makes U.S. policy more effective. But voters are left to judge mostly by tonal differences. Across a spectrum of issues, Romney tries to strike a more aggressive stance.
It’s not a pure hawk-and-dove kind of distinction.
By launching the high-risk raid to kill Osama bin Laden, aggressively prosecuting the war on terror with drone strikes, pressing the war in Afghanistan, backing Libyans who overthrew Moammar Gadhafi, and unequivocally asserting that he won’t let Iran develop nuclear weapons, Obama doesn’t qualify as passive. Meanwhile, despite Romney’s tough stance, he went out of his way Monday to say he wouldn’t use U.S. military force in Syria and would do so only as a last resort in Iran.
But to the degree Romney has tried to differentiate himself, it has been to outflank Obama on the hawkish side. That has been evident in his attempts to cast Obama as a weak and equivocal leader in everything from his management of the tumultuous Arab Spring to relations with China.
Romney would significantly increase military spending while Obama would not. He would revive confrontation with Russia and says he would take a tougher line on China.
On the most vexing issue facing the next president — stopping Iran’s nuclear program — both candidates are committed, even as they leave the public in the dark about the consequences of a pre-emptive attack, which include uncontrolled regional conflict and retaliatory terrorism.
Each candidate achieved something Monday night. Romney demonstrated knowledge of the issues, which sometimes eludes governors, and continued moving toward the center. Obama probably did better, fending off challenges to his core policies and exposing Romney’s policy flip-flops.
But with the last debate in the books, voters are still left with a lot of guesswork on matters that could change their lives.