Mitt Romney’s speech at VMI today confirmed every realist’s and non-interventionist’s worst fears about him: not only is his foreign-policy vision indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush — except that it may be more utopian and Wilsonian — but there’s no indication that any realist has the slightest influence on his strategic thinking.
That includes political realists: anyone who might convey to Mitt what a price the GOP paid for Bush’s wars in 2006 and 2008 — the price it will pay again in 2012, the way Mitt is going. Romney promised military Kenyesianism and was as demagogic as the best-paid Pentagon lobbyist in claiming “our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut.”
He attacked Obama for failing to extend America’s mission in Iraq — “America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence” — as if many more months (or years?) and untold scores of American lives lost would have done for Baghdad what eight years of nation-building failed to do. That’s a war Americans of all political backgrounds (even, quietly, not a few neoconservatives) are glad to see the back of, yet Mitt wants more. With a mindset like that, how long will he keep America’s sons and daughters fighting in Afghanistan?
He stopped short of saying he would send troops to Syria and Iran on day 1, but he telegraphed a clear commitment to brinksmanship and regime-change:
Iran today has never been closer to a nuclear weapons capability. It has never posed a greater danger to our friends, our allies, and to us. And it has never acted less deterred by America, as was made clear last year when Iranian agents plotted to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in our nation’s capital. And yet, when millions of Iranians took to the streets in June of 2009, when they demanded freedom from a cruel regime that threatens the world, when they cried out, “Are you with us, or are you with them?”—the American President was silent.
… I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region—and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination.
… In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran—rather than sitting on the sidelines.
This was not a speech he had to make — a speech distracting from the ground Romney had recently made up by refocusing his attention on the plight of America’s middle class. And if he had to make a foreign-policy speech, it did not have to cater to the neoconservatives and pork hawks already on his team. Nothing in this speech appeals to a war-weary and economically troubled people. It’s politically damaging. But he gave this speech anyway, and the only reasonable explanation is either that Mitt really believes — zealously — what he says, or else he’s entirely compliant to the ideological demands of right-wing Wilsonians. I suspect the latter is the case, and that portends a Romney presidency that would repeat all the errors of his Republican predecessor. The issue here is not even a reckless foreign policy versus a domestic policy that may give Republicans grounds for hope: a foreign policy like this will not permit much of a domestic policy at all. It will consume a presidency, just as it consumed George W. Bush’s.
P.S. Romney didn’t take Danielle Pletka’s advice: even the chief hawk at the most neoconservative think tank warned beforehand that “Mr. Romney needs to persuade people that he’s not simply a George W. Bush retread, eager to go to war in Syria and Iran and answer all the mail with an F-16″ and “Criticisms of Mr. Obama’s national security policies have degenerated into a set of clichés about apologies, Israel, Iran and military spending.” I suspect a new tune will be sung now that the speech has been given, but it’s telling that Romney has outdone AEI itself in pushing an unrelenting “Long War” line.
taxSlave says:
No matter who you vote for, the government wins, and you lose.
Don’t Vote.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
1
11th October 2012 at 7:16 pm
Stigmation says:
This whole political theater makes me sick. Obaney is the same person. I can’t remember when there has EVER been so little difference between two candidates. I am not voting and doubt I will ever vote again, until a REAL leader appears. I’m sure if he does, the cabel will have a bullet with his name on it. Ask JFK..
Hosea 4:6—My people are DESTROYED for LACK of KNOWLEDGE, because you have REJECTED KNOWLEDGE
RIP America
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
11th October 2012 at 7:41 pm
Kill Bill says:
http://original.antiwar.com/mchaney/2012/10/10/new-poll-finds-shifts-in-us-public-opinion-toward-middle-east/
A clear majority of Americans think that an Israeli attack on part of Iran’s nuclear program will result in higher oil prices and increase the likelihood of an Iranian attack on U.S. bases.
Most Americans wanted to take a neutral stand in the matter, but more than a third of Democrats polled wanted to discourage Israel from attacking and only 3% of Democrats wanted to encourage Israel to attack. Yet Republicans were split equally between encouraging or discouraging Israel from attacking.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
11th October 2012 at 7:50 pm
Stucky says:
True Story.
It’s 2:59AM and my chances of getting fucked are dwindling fast.
I’ve been going to the Scamster Bar for quite a few years. The joint got it’s name from their world class appetizers; shrimp, clams, and oysters. Bottom feeders, for the most part.
But everyone in town went to the Scamster because that’s where all the whores, skanks, prostitutes, and all kinds of other pussy there. Thing is, a guy never has to approach them! They are more than willing to buy us the drinks and curry their favors. Everything is free. It was the best gig in town.
I still to this day remember a favorite prostitute from about eight years ago. They never use their real names, and she told me her name was “Bushy”. She told nothing but lies from morning till night, but she fucked me real good. A few years later I met an even bigger skank, who called herself, Clint, because she was a Clint Eastwood fan, she said. She preferred giving blowjobs, and she was quite good at it.
But, the last few years have seen quite a huge dropoff. Blowjobs, handjobs, fuckjobs, all kinds of jobs seemingly disappeared forever. But, I kept going back to the same old shit. I guess some habits are just impossible to break.
So, it’s 2:59AM and I do believe I really screwed up this time. I had spoken to all kinds of potential candidates, at least nine, all evening. For some reason beyond me at this point, I rejected them all. Most of them went home to fuck someone else.
I look around the joint, and see that I’m down to two lousy whores. I’m so depressed I order there double shots of Jack Daniels. I need to be really drunk out of my mind before I choose. One of them is a long time regular, she’s been going there for about eight years. She’s an absolutely lousy fuck, but amazingly, lots of us like her. Not me though. She’s one of them half-white, half-black kind of people. Not my style. The other one calls herself “Mittens”, she says it’s because I could easily stick both my hands in there and still clap. Apparently she thinks that just because my nickname in that joint is Big Pussy, that that’s what I like. She couldn’t be more wrong. But, I must choose. I have needs, ya know?
Yeah. It’s 2:59AM. Two whore are left. And I’m gonna get fucked one way or another.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
5
11th October 2012 at 7:54 pm
Administrator says:
Stuck
I was wondering what Mrs. Freud would think, until I realized it was an allegory.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
11th October 2012 at 8:02 pm
Stigmation says:
LMAO Nice Stucky!!! I wish I was that creative!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
11th October 2012 at 8:06 pm
Stucky says:
Thanks, Stig.
Admin, allegory or not, Ms. Freud sees this and I’ll be sleeping at your place tonight.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
1
11th October 2012 at 9:26 pm
Eddie says:
Stucky
Nice story but it would be more accurate if you told it like It’s really a gay bar and you’re just deciding who is going to give it too you in the ass.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
11th October 2012 at 11:35 pm
ecliptix543 says:
Stucky, screw going to Philly just to sit there and proofread Admin’s latest preamble. Come on down to sunny Florida where Muck and I can show you some serious Scamster bars!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
11th October 2012 at 11:53 pm
Ron says:
Yeah im ready.I did buy more vaseline today.cruise the msn sites reading stuff from people that are paid to like Obama and write stuff or are so fucked up its scary.All this Obama is better than Romney crap.
If you ever get a chance watch the movie Contagion,i think i spelled that right.Anyhow some killer mutant virus kills millions all over the world.Sometimes i think that would be a good thing.At least my kids stopped touching everything wherever we went after seeing that fun fest movie.
A guy stopped me at a store parking lot and high fived me for my RP stickers,then said,to bad the guys running,with either one were fucked.Then walked away.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
11th October 2012 at 2:16 am
flash says:
At least Mittens will live up to his campaign promise of creating jobs.
What better way to put Americans back to work than engaging US in WWIII? cue the music …over there…over there….http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6hRDS3LvQQ&feature=related
…now if Obama were to just drop the hammer on Iran before Nov., he might weasel his way back into the race.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
11th October 2012 at 8:07 am
flash says:
The Kolobian Kreep would do well to take the advice of a member of the old and sane Right and take a pass on more US meddling in ME politics.
http://lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan271.html
Stay Out of the Syrian Maelstrom
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Recently by Patrick J. Buchanan: Is a Nuclear Deal With Iran Possible?
“In Syria, I will work … to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.”
This commitment by Mitt Romney in his VMI address has thrilled the neocons as much as it has unsettled the realists in his camp.
And the reasons for the latter’s alarm are apparent.
Last year, U.S. planes scrambled to defend Benghazi against the “tanks, helicopters and fighter jets” of Col. Gadhafi. Now we are investigating the murders of our ambassador and three Americans in the city we saved.
To bring down helicopters and fighter jets would require U.S. F-16s over Syria or putting surface-to-air missiles in rebel hands. Do we really want to be passing Stingers around a no man’s land where al-Qaida agents could buy up a few to bring down U.S. airliners?
What Romney proposes is an act of war. Before we get into our fourth war in 12 years, let us consider the antagonists.
This is first a religious war with the Shia regimes – Hezbollah, Iran and the Iraqis we brought to power – lined up behind Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Aligned against are Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who have been sending arms to the rebels, and Turkey, which has allowed the transfer of arms.
Egypt has not gotten involved, but President Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood has demanded that Assad stand down.
Among the rebels fighting Assad, however, are Islamic jihadists from across the Middle East and al-Qaida. And should Assad fall, his successor would likely be a Sunni favorite of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Does the Brotherhood “share our values”?
If Damascus falls to the Brotherhood, the Christians Assad sheltered would face the fate of the Copts in Egypt and Christians in Iraq: terror, persecution, expulsion. The Alawites, the Shia minority whence Assad comes, would go to the wall.
There is also an ethnic component to this war. If the regime and state collapse, Syria’s Kurds could emulate their cousins in Iraq and Turkey and unite to fight for a separate Kurdistan in the heart of the Middle East.
Then there are the strategic stakes. If Assad falls, the Shia crescent – Iran, Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon – is severed. Vladimir Putin’s navy, whose last base in the Mediterranean is Tartus on Syria’s coast, would suffer a strategic defeat.
Thursday, the Turks forced down a Syrian airliner flying from Moscow to Damascus and removed what the Turks described as military equipment. An angry Moscow has protested.
And Israel? While nothing would please Israelis more than a strategic defeat for Tehran, Assad and his father kept the peace on the Golan for 40 years. And as the Sinai is turning into a no man’s land with Hosni Mubarak gone and the Muslim Brotherhood in power, might not the same happen on the Golan when Assad falls?
And how have the Turks benefited from their involvement? By siding against Assad, they made a mortal enemy of a friend. Assad in retaliation loosened the reins on Syria’s Kurds, whose kinsmen are 20 percent of Turkey’s population. The Alawites in Turkey, ethnic Arabs, number another 15 million. The hard line taken by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is becoming increasingly unpopular with his people.
How long would Americans support an administration that embroiled us in this maelstrom?
In the last week, shells from Syria have landed on Turkish soil. Is the Syrian army doing this deliberately? That makes no sense.
Are these mortar shells landing in Turkey a result of artillery duels between the Syrian army and rebels? Or are the rebels doing it deliberately to provoke Turkey into entering the war?
The Turkish line toward Syria is growing more belligerent. Are the Turks seeking a clash with the Syrian army so Ankara can invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty and force the United States to join Turkey in ousting Assad, if not on a march to Damascus?
In an Arab world that does not fondly recall an Ottoman Empire whose heartland Turkey was, that would not sit well.
The Syrian civil war could end suddenly with the fall of Assad. But it could also widen with Turkey and Hezbollah becoming directly involved, and Russia, Iran and Iraq sending military aid to prop up their ally. The whole region could go up in flames.
Yet what vital American interest is there in who rules in Damascus to justify yet another U.S. war in the Middle East?
While the Assads are despotic, George H.W. Bush made the father an ally in Desert Storm and Ehud Barak offered to return to Hafez Assad the Golan Heights in exchange for a peace deal.
If America has a vital interest in this multisided war, that interest is served by staying out, as we have done for its duration.
And how exactly have we suffered by not plunging in?
October 12, 2012
Patrick J. Buchanan [send him mail] is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books, including Where the Right Went Wrong, and Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. His latest book is Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? See his website.
Copyright © 2012 Creators Syndicate
The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan
Back to LewRockwell.com
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
11th October 2012 at 9:09 am
Eddie says:
The world only has two places where the oil fields are not yet in decline.
Iraq and Iran. We (or rather the US Military Industrial Complex) have extended our hedgemeony to Iraq. Iran is next.
To me this is one of the most obvious of political truths.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
11th October 2012 at 9:20 am