Foreign Policy

Mitt Romney appears to have all the foreign-policy savvy of someone who once visited Euro Disney, and it's freaking me out. Not to say that President Barack Obama is any more knowledgeable on that front, but at least he seems aware of his limitations, outsourcing foreign leadership to the French, the Brits, Hillary Clinton and private contractors. Never has the world been so interconnected, with power and influence becoming decentralized and regionalized. America's problems -- economic or otherwise -- can no longer be solved from inside America, nor can conventional wisdom and the traditional order of things be predictably relied upon.

"If Mitt Romney can be pushed around, intimidated, coerced, co-opted by a conservative radio talk show host in Middle America, then how is he going to stand up to the Chinese? How is he going to stand up to Putin?" So asked Bryan Fischer, a radio host with the American Family Association, after claiming credit for Richard Grenell's scalp. Mr. Grenell is the openly gay former foreign policy spokesman for the Romney campaign. Before that, he worked for Ambassador John Bolton at the United Nations, easily the most revered diplomatic official among the base of the Republican Party since Jeane Kirkpatrick.

The United States has not won a war since 1945. We have been involved in numerous conflicts and our military has performed magnificently — considering the political interference and (mis)direction endured.  This interference has caused us to lose (as in the case of Vietnam) or come to a draw (as in the case of Korea) or had victories given away (as we are now witnessing in Iraq). We are following the same formula of failure in Afghanistan. Never in the past 66 years have we come to the political point where we could claim the capitulation of an enemy.  The result of this has been an erosion of international respect that has negatively affected our ability to use international coalitions or the threat of military action as effective suasion.

Richard Grenell had the right resume to be Mitt Romney's spokesman on foreign policy -- a stint as communications director for four of the Bush administration's U.N. ambassadors; a degree from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government; his own international PR firm and frequent stints on TV as an expert on international issues. Too bad for him he has a boyfriend. Mr. Grenell was the first openly gay spokesman for a presidential candidate, but he never got to speak. Before he even officially started the job, enraged homophobes in the so-called pro-family community spooked Mr. Romney's campaign staff.

WASHINGTON -- An extremely interesting analysis of President Clinton's foreign policy is offered in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, by ''Friend Of Bill'' Michael Mandelbaum. From the downsizing of the military to the deploying of U.S. troops on three continents. Mr. Mandelbaum finds the president's approach almost as strange as I do.He sees ''three failed military interventions'' -- in Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia -- as ''defining events'' of the Clinton administration -- events that express a ''distinctive view'' of America's role in the post-Cold War world.

MEDFORD, Mass. -- Recently, when Texas Gov. George W. Bush failed a little pop quiz on foreign affairs thrown at him by a Boston reporter, it was widely regarded as a gimmicky cheap shot. But Mr. Bush's failure nevertheless fanned questions about his qualifications in the foreign-policy field.His political strategists immediately swung into action, producing a major foreign-policy speech that won modest praise for their candidate as he laid down a basically conservative line on how he would conduct U.S. international affairs.

How would Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon react if they were still alive? Or Ronald Reagan if he were not afflicted with Alzheimer's disease? Or, more to the point: What do Gerald Ford and George Bush have to say about the assault of the Republican-controlled Congress on presidential power over foreign policy?At least Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, has registered his disapproval of GOP attempts to micromanage U.S. relations with nations that kindle Cold War animosities among GOP meddlers and isolationists.

Washington -- EVERY YEAR the nation's capital finds new "truths" about foreign policy, and this last year one of them has been the idea that dramatic or emotional TV coverage of foreign crises now dictates policy. The less-than-perfect American and U.N. intervention in Somalia is often mentioned as a case in point.I've had trouble with that idea from the start, even when U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali mentioned it to me in several interviews as a new factor in world power, one that was making his life even more miserable than it already was.Now, wonder of wonders, some genuine truths are emerging from the question, "Is television forming foreign policy in this new age?"

With 1,800 Marines due to land in Somalia at dawn tomorrow, what President Bush has begun will be President-elect Clinton's to finish. Even if some withdrawals are completed by Inauguration Day, if for no other purpose than to fulfill Mr. Bush's self-imposed timetable, uniformed U.S. military personnel are likely to be in the Horn of Africa for a long, long time. It will be Mr. Clinton's task to define their extended mission, decide when it is over, determine whether Somalia is to be a prototype for U.S. interventions elsewhere and, if the need arises, conclude when and where he will make new overseas commitments.

Don't look now, but the U.S. is experiencing something unusual in its recent history: a moment of bipartisan consensus on foreign policy. Over the last month, President Barack Obama has launched initiatives in areas that were flash points of contention only a year ago: winding down the war in Iraq, escalating the conflicts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, negotiating with Iran, renewing efforts to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and seeking...

The United States has not won a war since 1945. We have been involved in numerous conflicts and our military has performed magnificently — considering the political interference and (mis)direction endured.  This interference has caused us to lose (as in the case of Vietnam) or come to a draw (as in the case of Korea) or had victories given away (as we are now witnessing in Iraq). We are following the same formula of failure in Afghanistan. Never in the past 66 years have we come to the political point where we could claim the capitulation of an enemy.  The result of this has been an erosion of international respect that has negatively affected our ability to use international coalitions or the threat of military action as effective suasion.

Where is Afghanistan policy headed at this crucial moment? As the nation's excellent if unsung war commander, Gen. John Allen, testifies on Capitol Hill this week, and as Republican presidential aspirants continue to attack President Barack Obama from both the left and the right on the subject, these questions are especially timely. Will the president soon be tempted to say that with Osama bin Laden dead (on the positive side), but with the Afghan and Pakistani governments still very hard to work with and the insurgency still resilient (on the negative side)

Mitt Romney appears to have all the foreign-policy savvy of someone who once visited Euro Disney, and it's freaking me out. Not to say that President Barack Obama is any more knowledgeable on that front, but at least he seems aware of his limitations, outsourcing foreign leadership to the French, the Brits, Hillary Clinton and private contractors. Never has the world been so interconnected, with power and influence becoming decentralized and regionalized. America's problems -- economic or otherwise -- can no longer be solved from inside America, nor can conventional wisdom and the traditional order of things be predictably relied upon.

The muted communication from a spokesperson for the Navy's Fifth Fleet that it won't tolerate an Iranian attempt to close to Strait of Hormuz and shut off much of the world's oil supply is not an adequate response to the threat. It comes off as another sign of an apathetic, apologetic U.S. foreign policy ("Iran warns U.S. over Strait of Hormuz," Dec. 29). Why does it always seem that President Obama is out of town when we need him? We see him getting ice cream with his family, which is very touching.

The news media's lack of analysis regarding the policy proposals of the leading presidential candidates is disheartening. The media have relinquished their responsibilities to inform the public; instead, they have become entertainment impresarios, hailing the masses to the big top to see the bearded lady and the fat man. I don't see an ounce of intelligent coverage out there. The public doesn't really need analysis of President Obama's 2012 platform. He is in power now, and whatever the public is getting from him now, it will get for four more years.

And so it ends. The United States is leaving Iraq. I'm solidly in the camp that sees this as a strategic blunder. Iraqi democracy is fragile and Iran's desire to undermine it is strong. Also, announcing our withdrawal is a weird way to respond to a foiled Iranian plot to commit an act of war in the U.S. capital. Obviously, I hope I'm wrong and President Obama's not frittering away our enormous sacrifices in Iraq out of domestic political concerns and diplomatic ineptitude. Still, there's an upside.

Republicans on Capitol Hill have pulled back just in time from their ill-considered attempt to limit a president's authority as commander in chief of the armed forces. The move was out of character for a party that since World War II has been steadfast in its internationalism. It was based not on constitutional principle but on a partisan urge to capitalize on President Clinton's foreign policy ineptness in Bosnia, Haiti and, especially, Somalia.Former Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP's 1964 presidential nominee, rightly said he can't understand the "mistakes" Senate Republican leader Bob Dole has been making in trying to curb the president's power to commit U.S. troops to Haiti or Bosnia.

It seems that Michele Bachmann's husband, Marcus, and his counseling clinics are the new favorite punch line for political comedians.  With his "pray the gay away" therapy tactics under scrutiny, Marcus Bachmann has been lampooned all week on Comedy Central. Most of the jokes have centered on comedians' belief that Bachmann himself is secretly gay and therefore a hypocrite.  The Second City Network has joined this line of humor with the below video. In it, the Bachmanns are repulsed to even kiss each other and Marcus breaks out dancing in flashy red underwear.  (Bachmann, for his part, is denying his counseling methods are "anti-gay" and says an interview in which he compares homosexuals to "barbarians" was "doctored," ABC is reporting.

Influential Chicago rapper Lupe Fiasco recently had some harsh words for President Barack Obama, which is no surprise for anyone who follows his music. Lupe's been critical of Obama in the past, but he took it a step further when he called Obama "the biggest terrorist" in America in an interview with CBS News.  “In my fight against terrorism, to me, the biggest terrorist is Obama in the United States of America," he said. "For me, I’m trying to fight the terrorism that’s actually causing the other forms of terrorism.