Frankenstein Resuscitated

The reckless, inaccurate and unpatriotic politicking declarations of Mitt Romney against the president of the nation at a time when the entire country was facing a serious foreign policy crisis has caused the emergence of foreign policy issues in the current U.S. presidential campaign.

Romney’s diatribe was unwise because the Republican presidential candidate spoke without having the necessary information to review the matter. It is imprecise because Romney does not fit his exclusion to the call for religious tolerance made by the U.S. embassy in Cairo in this time frame. Romney criticized President Obama without realizing that the embassy statement was released before the attack was carried out, not after, as he erroneously said.

This is political speech because he spoke after knowing the results of a survey done by the Wall Street Journal stating that President Obama is gaining ground with voters in Florida, Virginia and Ohio. Obama’s lead is already seven points.

Even worse for Romney, the same poll found that voters in these three key election states consider Obama as equally or more qualified than Romney to revive the economy. And if all this were not enough, all current and previous surveys indicate that on the issue of foreign policy, voters always have given the President a considerable advantage over his opponent.

Finally, the declaration is unpatriotic because never before in the history of this country has a presidential candidate dared to attack the sitting president — who, remember, is the commander- in-chief of the armed forces — at a time when the country’s enemies murdered diplomats, assaulted their consulates and embassies and burned their flags in the public square. As expected, criticism of the self-indulgent statements from Romney has been overwhelming from a broad section of the political establishment.

For officials who have worked in the field of international relations under Democratic and Republican administrations, such as Nicholas Burns who worked for Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Romney’s outbursts are disappointing, “Gov. Romney’s reaction of politicizing such a difficult situation not only causes consternation but shows that, in a very prudent way, he has gotten into a difficult situation because he spoke without having the correct information.” [Ed. Note: exact quote not verified]

Obama Attacks the Root Problem

The repudiation from experienced Republican strategists has been no less harsh in talks with the media and opinion pieces in major newspapers. This includes one written by the legendary Ed Rogers and published in the Washington Post: “At this solemn, serious moment, Mitt Romney had to be crisp and precise. He was neither…. The president had to display stature and resolve. He did both. I’m stunned that Romney didn’t take more time to have a clear, well-delivered statement regarding our ambassador’s murder in Libya.” It’s a tough and fair critique by an experienced strategist. The highlight, however, is what occurred last week, which gives us a very clear idea of how both candidates react to an international crisis and underlines the contrast in their views on foreign policy.

So far, Obama’s foreign policy has been characterized by the search for rapprochement toward other countries, especially those that are hostile, through dialogue, as well as the limited use of force. The cost of the adventures of George W. Bush in human life, economic waste and deterioration of the U.S. image caused Obama to adopt a cautious policy.

Circumstance has not prevented him, however, from standing beside the people who have rebelled against their dictators. Furthermore, instead of bombing civilians and invading countries, Obama has been dedicated to eliminating the heads of al-Qaida, starting with Osama bin Laden, with surgically accurate punches.

The Same Wrong Advisers

Romney, meanwhile, calls for a foreign policy based on aggressive speech and heavy-handedness. And if all this fuss sounds like a repeat of the policies of Bush Jr., it’s because the people currently formulating Romney’s foreign policy are exactly the same as those who formerly dictated to Bush the policies of preventive war, the “you’re with us or against us” mentality and the unilateral military response. They are the kind of policies that produced two unjustified and unjustifiable wars, caused a brutal deterioration in the image of the country, led to a financial disaster which we still cannot get out of and caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.

This is the true dimension of the terms of dilemma that voters will decide this November. The option is to return to the nightmare Bush invented or continue along the path marked by Obama’s favor of prudence, his hand outstretched for dialogue and firmness when necessary.