Foreign Policy

"What is our purpose?'' Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole asked of the latest U.S. commitment of troops to Somalia. ''What is the cost? How long will they stay?''U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali addresses these questions in his most recent report to the Security Council on Somalia. But his answers would not please Mr. Dole or a growing number of senators and representatives concerned about the increasing U.S. commitment to the U.N. operation in Somalia.Mr. Boutros-Ghali explains that what began as an effort to prevent mass starvation has become a campaign ''to reconstruct [Somalia's]

Now that Hillary Clinton is unemployed, here is a synopsis of world situations she was engaged in and responsible for during her tenure as Secretary of State. China: Officials she upset would not even meet with her the last three years. North Korea: Our attempts to talk with them never commenced and they are now threatening to shoot long-range nuclear missiles at us. Egypt: An ally forever is now run by the Muslim Brotherhood to whom we are now selling sophisticated weaponry.

Robert Ehrlich Jr.'s recent column ("Obama's foreign policy reset has little to show for it," Oct. 28) could not be further from the truth when it states that Iran is "oh-so-close to acquiring a nuclear weapon. " In fact, our own intelligence agencies have stated that Iran has neither nuclear weapons nor a weapons program and ended its former program in 2003. Mr. Ehrlich has been wrong about his support for a disastrous war in Iraq, his calling for military action in Iran and his willingness to allow Israel to dictate U.S. foreign policy.

Unfortunately, our nation faces enormous challenges in virtually every region of the globe. In countries ranging from Iran to North Korea to Syria to Mali, and on issues spanning terrorism, drug trafficking, global warming and cyber warfare, each day will bring seemingly impossible problems for our nation's foreign policy leaders, especially new Secretary of State John Kerry. There is one international issue, however, on which genuine progress is not only possible but is likely - if the secretary of state and President Barack Obama are prepared to make this issue a foreign policy priority.

On Monday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney delivered a foreign policy speech to cadets at the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Va. He was correct in his indictment of the Obama administration for its numerous failures -- especially in the Middle East -- and his embrace of Ronald Reagan's "peace through strength" philosophy. A strong and respected America is less likely to be attacked. The Obama administration's approach to foreign policy has been one of apology, genuflection to dictators and inconsistency.

Historians note the American alliance with King Louis XVI sustained the American cause during the darkest days of the Revolution. The history is impossible to escape. But for the deal struck in February 1778, General Washington and his Continental Army would likely not have survived. Nevertheless, and despite a successful alliance in two world wars, taking the French to task has become a popular American sport. French resistance to U.S. foreign policy moves is one reason.

Republican former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s column ("Obama's foreign policy reset has little to show for it," Oct. 28) criticizes President Barack Obama's foreign policy. It focused much on the tour that the President Obama undertook early in his administration. Mr. Ehrlich rightly points out that Mr. Obama never used the word apology. The tour could have been criticized for focusing too much on the foreign policy mistakes that the U.S. has made in the past but that would not have gained headlines, so the president's opponents called it an apology tour.

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.

Once again, with his intemperate criticisms of the handling of the anti-American episodes in Egypt and Libya, Mitt Romney has leaped before looking into the arena of President Barack Obama's greatest political strength. In accusing the Obama administration of apologizing in the wake of an attack on the American embassy in Cairo and the killing of the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi, Mr. Romney has laid himself open to the charge of politicizing a foreign policy crisis. Worse, he has at least temporarily shifted the focus of the presidential campaign away from his strongest debating point, the stalled economy at home.

Mitt Romney's major speech on foreign policy at the Virginia Military Institute Monday was long on style but remarkably short on substance. On the unrest in the Middle East, Israel, Iran, Syria and relations with China, the GOP challenger was quick to criticize President Barack Obama for his alleged failure "to shape history" in America's image. Yet aside from such rhetorical flourishes, the most striking thing about Mr. Romney's own policy prescriptions was how little they differed from what the Obama administration is already doing.

Whether Chuck Hagel and John Brennan are the ideal men to lead the Pentagon and CIA remains to be seen. We need the exercise of a through vetting in Senate confirmation hearings, and certainly an examination of the nominees' past statements and actions is warranted. But the objections raised about Mr. Hagel so far, and to a lesser extent, Mr. Brennan, sound a lot more like an attempt to score political points than an effort to get at the key questions that will face the leaders of two of the nation's most crucial agencies.

Susan Rice has not demonstrated the qualifications needed for the delicate position of U.S. Secretary of State, particularly when our foreign policy in Syria, Egypt and Libya is in such disarray ("Obama's conundrum," Nov. 30). Approval of nominees to cabinet positions is by law the prerogative of the Senate. Certainly the president is entitled to his opinion as to who the nominee should be, but at the same time the Senate is required to state that he has made a mistake. The president is not omnipotent; he is human in his choices which may involve political considerations and even bias.

Historians note the American alliance with King Louis XVI sustained the American cause during the darkest days of the Revolution. The history is impossible to escape. But for the deal struck in February 1778, General Washington and his Continental Army would likely not have survived. Nevertheless, and despite a successful alliance in two world wars, taking the French to task has become a popular American sport. French resistance to U.S. foreign policy moves is one reason.

Richard Seymour cannot understand why more than 50 percent of the electorate voted for President Obama ("Difficult to find an explanation for why voters chose president," Catonsville Times, Nov. 14). He cannot understand why people would vote to increase taxes on themselves. I'll try to explain and I'll use small words so he can follow along. During the last 11 years, we have been fighting three wars (Iraq, Afghanistan and the "Global War on Terror") and we didn't pay a dime for any of them.

Rep. Ron Paul gave his farewell address on the House floor on Nov. 14 after serving 23 years in office over a 36-year span. During that time, he fought tirelessly and courageously for us, the people. He couldn't be bought by special interests, and his political pursuits weren't for self-promotion and didn't come from ego. He was the leading promoter of liberty, peace and prosperity on Capitol Hill. His search for the plain truth of things motivated him to bravely stand in opposition to several of the traditional policies and practices that undermine our full potential as a nation.

I think I owe an apology to George W. Bush. William F. Buckley once noted that he was 19 when the Cold War began at the Yalta conference. The year the Berlin Wall came down, he became a senior citizen. In other words, he explained, anti-Communism was a defining feature of conservatism his entire adult life. Domestically, meanwhile, the right was largely a "leave me alone coalition": Religious and traditional conservatives, overtaxed businessmen, Western libertarians, and others fed up with government social engineering and economic folly.

Regarding your article about Mitt Romney's remarks in Israel, who is he to speak for us ("Romney declares his commitment to Israel," July 30)? Mr. Romney argued thatTehran'sayatollahs "are testing our moral defenses" and monitoring "who will object" and "who will look the other way. " He said that "we have a solemn duty and a moral imperative to denyIran'sleaders the means to follow through on their malevolent intentions," and that the conduct...

Robert Ehrlich Jr.'s recent column ("Obama's foreign policy reset has little to show for it," Oct. 28) could not be further from the truth when it states that Iran is "oh-so-close to acquiring a nuclear weapon. " In fact, our own intelligence agencies have stated that Iran has neither nuclear weapons nor a weapons program and ended its former program in 2003. Mr. Ehrlich has been wrong about his support for a disastrous war in Iraq, his calling for military action in Iran and his willingness to allow Israel to dictate U.S. foreign policy.

Republican former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s column ("Obama's foreign policy reset has little to show for it," Oct. 28) criticizes President Barack Obama's foreign policy. It focused much on the tour that the President Obama undertook early in his administration. Mr. Ehrlich rightly points out that Mr. Obama never used the word apology. The tour could have been criticized for focusing too much on the foreign policy mistakes that the U.S. has made in the past but that would not have gained headlines, so the president's opponents called it an apology tour.