PLANK MAY 31, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Following the massacre in Houla this past Friday, Mitt Romney has briefly shelved his economic message to criticize President Obama’s Syria policy. The New York Times notes that Romney, who wants to arm the Syrian rebels, faces a GOP divided over intervention. But the most interesting comparison isn’t between Romney and other Republicans; it’s (surprise!) between Romney and Romney.
In this case, Romney’s schizophrenia is over our involvement in humanitarian crises. Last spring, as Muammar Qaddafi was promising to slaughter the people of Benghazi, Romney was wildly difficult to pin down on Libya, but eventually he figured out just how to attack the president what he believed: The mission was imprudent. In late April 2011, Romney wrote a post for National Review Online called “Mission Muddle in Libya,” in which he criticized Obama for escalating the Libya mission in an “under-deliberated and ad hoc” manner. Romney noted that what started as a no-fly zone eventually transformed into a mission to oust Libya’s longtime dictator. “What we are watching in real time,” he warned, “is another example of mission creep and mission muddle.”
It’s tough to reconcile that level of caution with Romney’s relative hawkishness on Syria. As complicated as Libya was, most foreign policy experts think Syria is vastly more so—and so the case for intervention is weaker. (Human Rights Watch, for instance, praised the decision to intervene in Libya, but showed considerably less enthusiasm when expressing worry to the Times about the “complexity and risk in Syria.”)
It’s pretty clear that the White House’s restraint against Assad is due, in large part, to a fear of the same “mission creep” Romney was so worried about in Libya. Once we’re involved in Syria, it’s going to be awfully hard to back out. (Afghanistan, anyone?) And it’s not clear why prudence and restraint, so important in 2011’s crisis, are suddenly—as Romney puts it—“a policy of paralysis” in 2012. That’s not to say the administration’s approach to humanitarian crises has been perfect—far from it. But Romney could at least try to offer a coherent alternative.
11 comments
No. Obama's reluctance to implement a no-fly zone in Syria is because it keeps getting veto'ed by China and Russia in the Security Council of the UN. Unlike Bush, who just wanted a UN rubber-stamp to justify what he wanted to do anyway, and was perfectly fine ignoring them if that suited his purposes, Obama actually LISTENS to people, and changes what he does based on what they say. Shocking, I know. And yes, Syria is a much bigger problem than Libya. Who would we support? I mean, really, who would we be supporting -- are the rebels more Islamic radical than the Syrian Government?
- AllanL5
May 31, 2012 at 8:22am
Besides, this is Etch-a-Sketch Romney we're talking about. This entire campaign, "coherency" hasn't been one of his attributes. Still, keep asking for it, you'd think that would be something needed in a president.
- AllanL5
May 31, 2012 at 8:23am
Are you kidding? The Republican party made coherence obsolete years ago. Besides, looked at one way, Romney's positions are entirely coherent: he's Bizarro-Obama. Whatever Obama is for, Bizarro-Obama is against and vice versa.
- AaronW
May 31, 2012 at 8:29am
It is a shame no reporter ever revisits Libya and asks Romney if he still wishes Gadhafi were still in power. The Libya intervention was about as perfect as can be, the US lost not a single soldier, the Libyan people feel they own their revolution, and Gadhafi is gone. Yet no reporter asks Romney about Libya.
- blackton
May 31, 2012 at 9:14am
What those (smarter) guys above me said. There really isn't much to it. If Obama announced a plan to eradicate cancer in our lifetime, Romney would scream about all the oncologists about to be put on bread lines. If he said we SHOULD intervene in Syria, Romney would reverse himself and start using the word "quagmire" an awful lot. If he wanted to push for a comprehensive health care overhaul... oh never mind
- Tristan
May 31, 2012 at 9:21am
Romney doesn't need to be coherent on Syria or offer constructive alterantives, because his job is to sting the President in any feasible way over an issue that most Americans don't care about. Unless the US actually intervenes in Syria, the vast majority of voters won't know and won't care about the conflict and America's role in it. For Romney, his main job is to get the Republican and Independent share of that oblivious electorate to believe that Obama is botching the job. It doesn't really matter what the job is or what Romney would do better -- all he has to do is contribute to his preferred narrative of Obama as a feckless leader. Of course, it is pretty hard to get there with anyone but core Repuiblicans given that Obama is the guy who killed Bin Laden and decimated Al Qaeda -- but Romney might as well try. What he doesn't have to do is actually make constructive suggestions, as there is no upside to doing that unless Obama actually commits American troops to Syrian and average voters start caring.
- wildboy
May 31, 2012 at 9:45am
It's very easy to reconcile Romney's positions on Libya and Syria. His position is that whatever Barack Obama is doing is wrong, and Romney is for the other option. Same as Newt Gingrich, but Romney is craftier and by being harder to pin down he is less likely to be caught in the revolving door as Gingrich was on Libya. Romney is counting on Russia and China to block any kind of UN/French/US intervention at least until the election so that he doesn't have to flip positions.
- JEFF FREY
May 31, 2012 at 11:15am
I had read that as a businessman, Romney was not really a vision guy. His forte was picking up the suggested solutions (and picking apart businesses). Except for lowering his own taxes (and less regulation,) he really hasn't offered much in the way of governing. If he was elected, I can't imagine him doing anything but criticizing democrats, his predecessor, and the press (for talking about things he doesn't want to talk about).
- Nusholtz
May 31, 2012 at 11:47am
You guys are more interested in showing what an inconsistent self serving jerk Romney is (using terms like Schizophrenia shows a level of paranoia usually reserved for Republicans) than in a realistic policy that will get the Assad's out of Syria. There are reasons to worry about precipitous intervention, Iran has threatened "to attack Israel" (probably indirectly through proxies) if the West intervenes in that country against the government, but still Romney's decision to support such a move should be welcomed.
- arnon1
May 31, 2012 at 6:19pm
" Romney is counting on Russia and China to block any kind of UN/French/US intervention at least until the election so that he doesn't have to flip positions." How do you know this, Jeff Frey?
- arnon1
May 31, 2012 at 6:21pm
Arnon, it is inference rather than inside knowledge, coupled with a cynical view of Romney's behavior. Russia and China have been blocking any action against Syria in the Security Council, while France has made noises about intervention. if there is a UN-backed intervention and the US participates, Romney will need to find an excuse for attacking Obama over it -- too cautious, too bold, too multilateral, too something.
- JEFF FREY
May 31, 2012 at 9:18pm