Republican debate highlights foreign policy differences (The Christian Science Monitor)

Saturday nighta€?s Republican debate saw no major stumbles or gaffes, nothing in what CBS News and the National Journal ostentatiously called a€?The Commander-in-Chief Debatea€

In fact, of all the (it only seems like) hundreds of debates so far, this one seemed the most substantial, focusing on national security and foreign affairs – life-and-death issues that President Obama polls relatively well in.

While the range of differences stretched from tough to tougher – except for Ron Paul’s isolationism and Jon Huntsman's more experienced, more nuanced outlook – there were points at which differences were highlighted.

MONITOR QUIZ: Weekly News Quiz for Nov. 6-11, 2011

Still, nothing happened to alter the basic candidate ranking as post-debate polls are likely to show – Mitt Romney and Herman Cain neck-and-neck at the top and Newt Gingrich enjoying a boomlet that may or may not last.

“The debate illustrated again that the divide in the GOP presidential field on foreign policy is between those who know what they are talking about and those who don’t,” observed Jonathan Tobin, senior online editor of the neoconservative Commentary magazine.

“A clear grasp of war and peace issues won’t transform Rick Santorum into a first tier candidate from an also-ran,” Tobin blogged following the debate. “But his lack of command of the issues does make it difficult, if not impossible, for Herman Cain to put forward a plausible argument for himself as a potential president…. While it must be admitted that he’s come a long way from the comical ignorance he displayed on this topic when he began his campaign, he still came across as the weakest of all the contenders.”

IN PICTURES: Republicans in the 2012 presidential race

Unable to tout his signature “9-9-9” tax scheme (although he did throw in another “9” citing what he said are the number of countries with nuclear weapons) or to exhibit his folksy style, which would have seemed inappropriate given the debate’s focus, Cain fell back on the cautious and fuzzy.

Several times when debate moderators tried to pin him down, he said he’d have to consult with military commanders – “a dodge that allowed him to avoid being drawn into several topics moderators pressed on,” as Jonathan Martin and Ginger Gibson at Politico.com put it.

Cain is definitely against torture, he said, although that does not include waterboarding as “enhanced interrogation.”

Here was a subject on which Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman stood out as the only ones opposed to the controversial interrogation procedure banned under international law, opposed by former POW Sen. John McCain, and for which Japanese officers were prosecuted by the United States after World War II.

Rep. Paul called waterboarding “immoral” and “impractical.”

"We diminish our standing in the world and the values that we project, which include liberty, democracy, human rights and open markets, when we torture," Huntsman said. "We lose that ability to project values that a lot of people in corners of this world are still relying on the United States to stand up for."

Most of the presidential hopefuls applauded the recent killing of major Al Qaeda figures, including Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. (Again, Ron Paul was the major exception.) That and the winding down of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan a€“ favored by most Americans a€“ made it harder for them to criticize the Obama administration on its approach to terrorism.

"I don't think there's a very strong narrative," Bush administration spokesman Tony Fratto told the Associated Press. "Is it a significant issue for a majority of Republican voters? No. It's not."

But recent reports of Iran’s activities to develop nuclear weapons gave an opening to threaten tougher sanctions and even a US military strike.

"If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon," said Romney.

Rick Perry’s most memorable point of the evening was his statement that “every country is going to start at zero dollars” in American foreign aid. “Does that include Israel,” the moderator quickly asked? “Absolutely,” Perry said.

“Obviously Israel is a special ally and my bet is we would be funding them at some substantial level,” he said. “But it makes sense for everyone to come in at zero and make your case.”

Heading off what could have been seen as anything less than full support of Israel – an essential for any American politician seeking national office –  @PerryTruthTeam quickly tweeted, “Perry is a friend to Israel, understands challenges faced by the country.”

Still, the comment drew criticism.

“Perry's idea is bad news for Israel and shows how little he understands its needs,” wrote former CIA officer Bruce Riedel, now a senior fellow in the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution.

Perry’s proposal “would have a very disruptive impact on Israeli military planning and Israeli security,” Riedel wrote at Newsweek’s Daily Beast web site. “The reality is military budgets are planned on a multi-year cycle. Friends don't rethink their friendships each fiscal year.”

IN PICTURES: Republicans in the 2012 presidential race

View the original article here

Obama touts foreign policy successes in Iraq, Libya (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama sought on Saturday to cast himself as a strong leader on foreign policy, highlighting a U.S. pullout from Iraq and the death of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi as success stories.

In a message Obama is likely to push in his 2012 re-election campaign, he said his leadership had made it possible to turn the page on a decade of war and refocus on bolstering the U.S. economy and paying down the national debt.

Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that Gaddafi's death and the announcement that all U.S. troops would be removed from Iraq this year were "powerful reminders of how we've renewed American leadership in the world."

The emphasis on foreign policy comes as confidence in Obama's stewardship of the economy has fallen sharply, causing his overall approval ratings to slide to around 42 percent, the lowest of his presidency.

With the economy's woes weighing heavily on Americans' minds, Obama may have trouble gaining political traction from his message on foreign policy.

The killing in May of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden by a U.S. Navy Seal team in Pakistan brought only a temporary boost to Obama's poll numbers.

Obama mentioned bin Laden in the radio speech and said victories against al Qaeda -- along with the policies toward Iraq and Libya -- were "part of a larger story" of success.

"In Libya, the death of Muammar Gaddafi showed that our role in protecting the Libyan people, and helping them break free from a tyrant, was the right thing to do," he said.

"In Iraq, we've succeeded in our strategy to end the war," Obama added.

Prominent Republicans have criticized the decision to fully withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, saying it would embolden neighboring Iran.

Republicans also contend Obama has hurt America's image by pursuing a "leading from behind" strategy on the "Arab Spring" uprisings.

Mitt Romney, the front-runner in the Republican race to challenge Obama in 2012, in a speech earlier this month accused the president of pulling back from the view that America should be the "strongest nation on Earth."

(Writing by Caren Bohan; Editing by Paul Simao)

View the original article here

Obama's foreign successes may help little in 2012 (AP)

WASHINGTON – By declaring the Iraq war over, President Barack Obama scored what his allies see as a fourth big foreign policy success in six months, starting with Osama bin Laden's killing.

But in his re-election bid, these events might play a discouragingly small role even if they burnish his eventual place in history.

Voters tend to focus heavily on domestic issues, especially in times of high unemployment. That will limit Obama's campaign options.

His supporters are seeking ways to make the most of his foreign policy accomplishments. One approach is to contrast them with Congress' partisan-driven gridlock on taxes, the deficit and other domestic issues.

"Look at the progress the president can make when he doesn't have Republicans obstructing him," said Karen Finney, a former Democratic spokeswoman who often defends the party on TV and radio.

Democratic strategist Rebecca Kirszner Katz distributed a similar remark on Twitter this past week: "Terrorists and dictators, lacking the filibuster, have no effective defense against Barack Obama." It referred to the stalling tactic that Senate Republicans frequently use to kill Democratic bills even though they hold only 47 of the chamber's 100 seats.

These Democrats hope people will see a bold and capable president who keeps his promises when Republicans don't create roadblocks. They note that he approved the raid to kill bin Laden in Pakistan on May 1 and policies that led to last month's drone-missile killing of American-born al-Qaida figure Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen; backed allied actions that led to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's ouster and death; and ended U.S. involvement in Iraq on schedule.

"It is very important for any incumbent to be able to talk about promises made and promises kept," Finney said. The list of achievements, contrasted with President George W. Bush's erroneous claims about Iraq's weaponry in the first place, should help Democrats shake their image of being the weaker party on national security, she said.

"That baggage is finally lifted," Finney said.

Translating that claim into votes for Obama 13 months from now may be difficult, however. The latest Associated Press-GfK poll confirmed that Americans place far greater emphasis on domestic issues, especially the economy, than on foreign matters, including the fight against terrorism.

The poll found Obama's overall approval rating at a new low, 46 percent, for the second straight month, even though 64 percent of adults approved of his handling of terrorism. Only 40 percent approved of his handling of the economy.

Ninety-three percent of those questioned said the economy was an extremely or very important issue. By comparison, 73 percent put the same emphasis on terrorism.

Democratic officials believe Obama's foreign policy record will look even better when the Republican presidential candidates hold a debate on that topic Nov. 15. Leading contenders Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are current or former governors, and businessman Herman Cain has never held public office. None has extensive foreign policy experience.

But voters routinely accept that. In recent presidential elections they have chosen governors from Georgia, California, Arkansas and Texas, plus a first-term senator, Obama.

On Friday, Romney and Perry criticized Obama's handling of Iraq. Some Democrats found Romney's remarks exceptionally harsh.

"President Obama's astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women," Romney said. "The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government."

Obama's defenders fired back. "Is there anything more hollow than Mitt Romney decrying `political considerations' in decision-making?" said former White House spokesman Bill Burton.

Perry said in a statement: "I'm deeply concerned that President Obama is putting political expediency ahead of sound military and security judgment by announcing an end to troop level negotiations and a withdrawal from Iraq by year's end." He said Obama "was slow to engage the Iraqis and there's little evidence today's decision is based on advice from military commanders."

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, was more generous. "American forces not only freed Iraq from a vicious tyrant, but — under the strategy developed and implemented by our generals, and the leadership of both President Bush and President Obama — ended a violent terrorist insurgency," he said.

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama "kept his pledge to the nation to end the war in Iraq in a responsible way, he has promoted our security in Afghanistan, and eliminated key al-Qaida leaders." He said Romney "didn't lay out a plan to end the war in Iraq."

Republican strategist Rich Galen said the economy clearly will dominate the 2012 election, and it might undo Obama. As for Obama's foreign record, however, Galen said, "they're doing exactly the right thing" by highlighting every success they can.

Galen said Obama clearly deserves credit for the raid on bin Laden's compound.

View the original article here