Edited by Jonathan Douglas
America's Limits
Published in Diário de Notícias
(Portugal) on 24 October 2012
by Bernardo Pires de Lima (link to
original)
It was a debate about the limits of America’s power. For Obama – who seemed to be at ease, more so than Romney – limits do exist, and can be circumvented by reducing the deficit, competitive education, and creating alliances to deal with the big issues of the day, such as Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, or China. The U.S. has limits in regard to external action, and should impose limits on the use of force, but they’ll remain adamant about capturing terrorists. And so, he touted kept promises: Iraq, Bin Laden, beheading Al-Qaeda, and withdrawing from Afghanistan.
For Romney, the limits of American power are whatever the president wishes them to be. At home this means creating 12 million new jobs, even despite the fact that he claims government doesn’t create jobs. Regarding foreign policy, he wants to be unilaterally tough on China, Iran, Russia, Pakistan, Syria, and Egypt, disregarding consequences in order to impose America’s will. For Romney, American power is limitless, and the results will be there, just as soon as he’s elected: Iran will bend the knee, Assad will run, Putin will yield, and Beijing will tremble. Even though the narrative may seem similar at times, these are two very distinct concepts of “the American grand strategy.”
Due to his job experience, Obama recognizes the inevitability of strategic withdrawal after two simultaneous wars and a financial crisis. His vision is to flex muscle a little less (without stopping it’s use), refocusing at home, and reorienting geopolitical priorities from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Faithful to his role as candidate, Romney envisions an America with an endless supply of resources and capability. He’s the master of its own fate, leader of America’s allies, immune to the options of others. Obama is like Bush Sr. at the gates of Baghdad, while Romney is the heir of Clinton’s triumphant decade. And as expected, the hooks were the most relevant for the campaign: Obama focused on Ohio and Pennsylvania, Romney on Florida and Wisconsin.
After all, all foreign policy is still domestic policy.
For Romney, the limits of American power are whatever the president wishes them to be. At home this means creating 12 million new jobs, even despite the fact that he claims government doesn’t create jobs. Regarding foreign policy, he wants to be unilaterally tough on China, Iran, Russia, Pakistan, Syria, and Egypt, disregarding consequences in order to impose America’s will. For Romney, American power is limitless, and the results will be there, just as soon as he’s elected: Iran will bend the knee, Assad will run, Putin will yield, and Beijing will tremble. Even though the narrative may seem similar at times, these are two very distinct concepts of “the American grand strategy.”
Due to his job experience, Obama recognizes the inevitability of strategic withdrawal after two simultaneous wars and a financial crisis. His vision is to flex muscle a little less (without stopping it’s use), refocusing at home, and reorienting geopolitical priorities from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Faithful to his role as candidate, Romney envisions an America with an endless supply of resources and capability. He’s the master of its own fate, leader of America’s allies, immune to the options of others. Obama is like Bush Sr. at the gates of Baghdad, while Romney is the heir of Clinton’s triumphant decade. And as expected, the hooks were the most relevant for the campaign: Obama focused on Ohio and Pennsylvania, Romney on Florida and Wisconsin.
After all, all foreign policy is still domestic policy.