Romney - Defense Proposals

I am a supporter of Mitt Romney. I largely agree with his foreign policy proposals. However, I disagree with his approach on defense spending. There are two reasons why.

1) The US Military can meet America's defense requirements with Obama's proposed 10yr defense budget. While the January sequester cuts would be catastrophic and must be avoided, Obama's proposed ten year/$450 bn cuts are effectively designed to maximize core force capabilities while taking into account the challenging fiscal environment that the US faces. These cuts are supported by current and former Secretaries of Defense and the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. This budget tool shows how the US Military could remain its flexible capabilities even after significant spending cuts. For me, building more ships will not equal more security (increased ship building is the cornerstone of Romney's defense plan). It will simply mean more debt.

2) If we Republicans want to honestly assert fiscal conservatism, we must be willing to recognize that our current defense expenditures are unaffordable. As the Joint Chiefs Chairman frequently states, the national debt has become the greatest threat to US security. We cannot continue to spend money that we do not have. America's defense spending must be rooted in strategic requirements and not corporate hand outs to the defense industry nor in feeding the pet projects of lawmakers. We cannot absolve the DoD from sharing its part in restoring our nation's finances.

Benghazi and the Obama Administration

The Benghazi security scandal has become a major problem for the Obama Administration. Not just in a political sense, but also in terms of honesty. After the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans, the Administration was quick to suggest that the assault had simply been a mob reaction to the 'Innocence of Muslims' youtube video. Incidentally - the fact that the 'Innocence of Muslims' is still on youtube and yet the protests have now halted, provides strong evidence to support the suggestion that the video was not the underlying factor in the protesters motivation.

In reference to Benghazi, the problem with the Obama Administration is clear. In the aftermath of the attack, Administration officials ran to affirm that the attack was not a terrorist attack. Susan Rice, Obama's UN Ambassador, was the most senior official to do so. Even after intelligence sources were pointing to an prior organized attack, Rice persisted in arguing that the intelligence she had seen suggested that a random mob was responsible. There is a serious problem inherent in accepting the full veracity of this proposition.

As former CIA Director, Michael Hayden, explains, faced with a full scale armed attack on a high threat environment US diplomatic facility on 9/11, it is almost inconceivable to believe that the intelligence community would have been comfortable with the easy labeling of the act as video rather than terrorist connected. As Haden notes, the Obama Administration had an obvious political interest in purveying confidence of mob rather than terrorist responsibility. 

As anyone with knowledge of the intelligence process understands, intelligence assessments are predicated on the 'intelligence cycle'. This cycle relies upon a comprehensive process of collection, evaluation, analysis and application. In essence, intelligence officers seek to maximize their range of sources and conduct a varied, intensive analysis of any material available. In this sense, it seems almost certain that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence briefers would have disclosed to their consumers (senior Administration officials) at least the possibility that the Benghazi attack was far more than a mob action. Indeed, the fact that we now know the attack was terrorist related, provides strong circumstantial evidence that any original intelligence briefings which suggested a possible mob reaction as responsible, would have been graded as 'low confidence' assessments. 

I would submit that it is evident that Obama Administration officials mischaracterized the original intelligence.

        
      Sadly the story doesn't end here. In the Debate earlier this week, Vice President Biden stated that the Administration had not been made aware of cable requests from Libya for greater security. Security requests that were turned down. It is true that the President and Vice-President may not have been aware of these concerns. However, if there was any doubt about authorizing more security, the requests should have been pushed up the chain of authority. Again in the least worst scenario, the Administration was incompetent.

The reason that the Benghazi attack is so important is obvious and profound. Americans serving their country requested more security and didn't get it. And then they were killed. From the first days following the attack, the Obama Administration has reacted with false certainty, confusion and attempts at distraction (Biden changing Benghazi topic to Iraq during VP debate). The questions that need to be answered are clear. What did senior Administration officials (including the President/Vice President) know? When did they know? Was/is there a deliberate attempt to hide the full truth as it became/becomes clear? 

We know that the President has a flexible attention to his intelligence briefings, he didn't attend a single one in the week before the attack. Thus, the simple question remains- has the Administration behaved with incompetence or deception? The American people deserve honest answers.

Post VP Debate analysis

Last night's debate went broadly as I had expected. The Vice President was far more aggressive than Ryan, frequently launching emotionally laden attacks on the Romney-Ryan platform. Biden also sought to clearly assert himself as the spokesman for Mr. 'Average Joe'. In contrast, Ryan tried to keep  his statements to policy details while attacking the Obama-Biden record.

A few things stood out for me.

1) Biden's innate grinning was relentless and made him look ridiculous while Ryan was speaking. Biden came across rude and arrogant - just look at the focus group data.

2) Biden was unable to articulate an Obama-Biden plan for deficit/debt reduction. There's a simple reason why, their plan doesn't exist. This failure formed part of a trend in which Biden sought to demagogue against Ryan instead of articulating counter proposals. The absurdity of Obama's 'change' narrative was on full display last night. In four short years, we have traveled from the pursuit of 'a new tone in Washington', to a celebration of unrepentant partisanship.

3) Obama-Biden's policy on Afghanistan is nuts. Biden aka 'the GRINch' resorted to constant repetitions of the Obama Administration's fundamental withdrawal timeline. Where Ryan talked about paying attention to ground conditions and military advice, for Biden it was clear that domestic politics came first. For me, Afghanistan represents the most stunning example of this President's hypocrisy. 2008 Obama claimed that 'he would win the right war, the war that 'Bush neglected', instead, success in Afghanistan has been subordinated to pleasing the Democratic base. There can be few strategic errors as profound as that of announcing a timeline for withdrawal to your enemy.

4) Ryan's answer to the abortion question gave a clear indication of the difficulty that Republicans have on this issue. On the one hand, Romney-Ryan understand that they must attract more female voters to the party. On the other, the candidates also understand that social conservatives are a highly reliable voting block that are concerned about a few key issues - abortion being one such issue. Ultimately, I do not believe that Romney-Ryan would have any interest in overturning Roe v Wade. They understand that most Americans (especially women) do not want the government engaged on such a controversial issue. I also think that many people misinterpret where the Supreme Court stands on abortion (Biden played to this misunderstanding). Yes, Justices like Scalia might oppose Roe v Wade, but they oppose it because they do not believe that there is a constitutional right to abortion. Scalia has stated explicitly that he believes abortion law is an issue for legislatures rather than for the courts. If Congress wants to legalize abortion - fine. If they want to restrict abortion - fine. Personally, I tend to take a more UK style approach to abortion - that the law should be rooted in science and the capacity for functioning life, rather than in culture battles over Privacy vs God. We should be focused on the economy and foreign policy.

5) From my perspective, Ryan was very strong on the economy. He quoted facts and suggested reforms. Biden applied scare tactics. I also find it interesting that Obama-Biden attack Romney-Ryan for not giving itemized details on their tax plan. Obama-Biden's tax plan is a complete joke. Obama-Biden's sums don't add up and their tax proposals would reinforce the worst elements of our complex, loophole laden tax code.

Vice Presidential Debate

Apologies for my absence from the blog over the past few days - I have been busy with some other work.

Tonight will see the first and only 2012 Vice-Presidential debate. The meeting between Biden and Ryan should bring some compelling insights concerning the state of the campaign and the divergent benefits (and costs) that Biden and Ryan bring to their respective running mates.

There will be a number of dyanmics at play tonight.

1) In the aftermath of the President's debate performance last week, the Obama campaign will be looking to Biden to make a strong showing. The Obama campaign team understand that if Ryan wins convincingly against Biden, the political consequences will likely be profound. Having Romney and Ryan comfortably win the first two debates would most certainly fuel further negative media attention on the incumbent ticket. In addition, a clear Ryan win would move more independents into the Republican bracket. Both these outcomes would dramatically increase pressure on Obama's re-election prospects.

2) There will be an interesting 'contest of style' tonight. In a similar manner to the first Presidential debate in which Romney tried to claim the mantle of a less-populist, more-CEO style leader, Ryan will seek to assert that narrative even further. Ryan will be focused on appearing as a determined, passionate policy wonk. The Romney campaign are wagering (I believe correctly) that because of the economy, voters are far more interested in politicians who offer policy solutions, rather than warm populism. In contrast to Ryan, Biden will want to come across as a literal 'average joe'. Biden's greatest political talent is his ability to appeal to the instinctive emotions of voters. Biden will want to make people feel good about him and by association, also feel good about the President. The Obama campaign remain convinced that increased enthusiasm from their base will go along way to helping them achieve re-election. It will be interesting to see how these two styles interact.

3) The policy debate tonight will probably center on three issues - Medicare, tax reform and the Benghazi intelligence scandal (that Obama's foreign policy is weak and struggles with the truth). Biden will attempt to launch an emotionally charged attack on the Romney-Ryan medicare and tax reform proposals. Expect Biden to bring out lines like this one (I have made this up) - 'In the midst of an economy in which middle class families across America are suffering, Romney and Ryan want to cut taxes on millionaires and turn medicare into a voucher system where seniors have to fight for the medical care they are owed.' In contrast, Ryan will attempt to counter Biden with the logical argument that Medicare is going bankrupt and that America's national leadership owe voters serious solutions rather than populist games. Expect Ryan to blow holes in the absurd Obama-Biden argument that the rich can pay down the national debt. Ryan will also make the case that tax reform is crucial to American economic growth and effective revenue generation. I expect these policy debates will become heated. 

What do I think will happen? While I don't expect a win on the scale of Romney's last week, I do feel that Ryan will win tonight's debate. With the exception of foreign policy, I don't believe that Biden has the policy-wonk strength to seriously debate Ryan on the issues. Ryan's passion for the Romney-Ryan proposals and crucially, Ryan's ability to articulate the seriousness of the issues at stake will be clear to voters. I believe that Biden will struggle to defend an Administration lacking in serious policy solutions for the great challenges of our time.

Daily Politics Appearance

Finally managed to get a link for my Daily Politics appearance last week on BBC. Here it is.

Romney's VMI Speech

Earlier today Mitt Romney made a key-note foreign policy address. As with my recent analysis of President Obama's foreign policy, I thought it would be appropriate to analyze Romney's speech.

Here's what I liked.

First, I thought it was good that Romney went out of his way to pay tribute to the VMI. The Virginia Military Institute represents the enduring center of the South's contribution to American military service. And southern US states make the primary contribution to the US Military's personnel base.

Second, I thought Romney provided an articulate and persuasive argument concerning the political dynamics in the Middle East at the moment. I share Romney's belief that the Middle East is in the midst of a pivotal battle for its future. This is a struggle between forces of oppression and ideological tyranny, and between citizens who wish for greater freedom, greater opportunity and a better future for their children. There should be no question of where America stands.

Third, I thought that Romney laid out robust alternatives to Obama's policies on Afghanistan and Syria. Where Obama announced and laid down in stone an early artificial timetable to end America's military engagement in Afghanistan ('on schedule'), in contrast Romney today said that he would ensure that military advice and conditions on the ground would be at the core of his decision making process. On Syria, I feel that Romney was bold (and correct) to state that he would provide arms to the rebels. This is a proposition not without risk - those arms might ultimately fall into the hands of adversaries of the United States. However, for both moral and strategic reasons the US must support the liberation of Syria with greater tangible support.

Fourth, I thought Romney laid out a credible alternative to Obama's policy on Iran. Romney brought a poignant clarity to Obama's policy re-Iran. This President has preferred a small chance of detente with Iran's leaders rather than supporting the basic rights of the Iranian people. This is immoral and unbecoming of America. As a second albeit equally important point, I also believe that a President Romney would have a much greater likelihood of persuading Iran's leadership to give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Why? Because I believe that Iran regards Romney's threats as far more credible than Obama's. For diplomacy to work, Iran must fear the consequences of diplomatic failure.

Fifth, I agreed with Romney's position that US aid to Egypt should be contingent on the protection of our diplomatic facilities and the surety of Egyptian-Israeli peace. This is an obvious demand that Obama has not made openly.

However, there were areas where I disagreed with Romney.

First, I think Romney was wrong to say that the world should 'never see any daylight' between Israel and the US. While I believe that a strong and positive US relationship with Israel is a moral necessity, we must be willing to articulate our differences with the Israeli Govt. as and when they occur. It is not for example in the interests of the US that settlement construction in the West Bank continues unabated. While Romney is right to argue that the world must understand that the US will always ensure Israel's security, an intellectually robust and honest American policy requires that the US will not always agree with the Israeli standpoint. This is nothing to be afraid of. The US relationship with its closest ally, the UK, often faces points of disagreement. Yet, the special relationship always endures.

Second, I disagree with Romney's defense spending plans. While the January defense sequester would be a disaster that must be avoided, I believe that Obama's proposed $450bn/10yr defense cuts strike an achievable and realistic balance between fiscal austerity and strategic necessity. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is fond of arguing, our national debt is our greatest enemy. Building a greatly increased number of ships is unjustifiably expensive. This budget simulator illustrates the strong defense savings that could be made without damaging US security. While I disagree with Romney's defense spending proposals, I support his focus on greater submarine procurement as part of the Navy's existing construction choices. Submarines will be crucial in ensuring continued US naval supremacy into the future.

Overall though, a strong speech which presented a clear and bold counter to the incumbent's foreign policy. Romney is looking stronger every day.

The realist in idealist clothing - The confused foreign policy of President Obama

 The next Presidential debate will cover foreign policy. In advance of the debate I wanted to outline some of my thoughts about Obama's foreign policy.

Taking his recent UN speech at face value, you would think that the President's foreign policy pursues the advance of global freedom as its central raison d'etre. This is not born out in reality. Ultimately, for this President, the idealist 'freedom agenda' takes a back seat to a more traditional realist approach to international affairs. My concern is that this approach lacks a broad narrative of clarity and sacrifices long term interests in pursuit of vague, short term objectives.

After only a few months in office, President Obama faced an Iranian protest movement angered by endemic electoral fraud. While protesters demanding freedom were brutally suppressed by ideological extremists, Obama remained quiet. In the President's words, he did not want to be seen as 'meddling'. For Obama, the pursuit of an improbable detente with Iran's leaders was more important than the protection of basic individual freedom. It was evident that freedom had suffered a serious relegation in American foreign policy.

Another example of the declining importance of freedom was seen in the President's early policy towards Egypt. Just prior to the aforementioned protests in Iran, Obama addressed university students in Cairo to offer his support for eventual Egyptian democracy. Taken alone, Obama's words suggested a bold idealist narrative in his foreign policy. In fact, the reality was far different. The same year as his Cairo speech, Obama cut Egyptian democracy aid from the US by 60% and Civil Society/NGO support aid by 80%. For the President, words provided a cheap alternative to substantive assistance. Indeed, when Egyptians later revolted against the Mubarak government, Obama only shifted support to their revolution when it became apparent that Mubarak was doomed. For the President, Egyptian democracy was preferable only so far as it was cheap, easy and uncomplicated. As the recent embassy protests illustrated, Egyptian democracy has been far from uncomplicated. With words as well as action, Obama should have supported Egyptian freedom from the start.

The confusion in Obama's foreign policy has been most pronounced in his administration's variant responses to the revolutions in Libya and Syria. Where (under European pressure) Obama reluctantly signed on to the overthrow of Gaddafi's relatively weak regime, in Syria, US policy has been very different. Faced with Assad's military power and his alliance with Hezbollah and Iran, Obama has been reluctant to provide either direct or indirect military aid to the Syrian rebel movement. Obama's short term realist hesitancy has restrained American policy. The President could and should be taking greater steps to help Syrians win their freedom.

The President's realist sympathies are also evident in his conduct of grand power politics. Where a major element of President GW Bush's Russia policy was focused on support for eastern European democracy, Obama has instead favored a 'reset' designed to balance US-Russia relations into greater stability. Although this effort seems to have produced little tangible success, Obama has recently suggested that he would make even greater compromises to Putin if he wins re-election in November.

What about counter-terrorism policy under Obama?

In 2008, the President campaigned on a platform to close Guantanamo and reform the CIA's interrogation program. However, today's reality bears little resemblance to those now distant words. Under Obama, predator drone strikes against suspected terrorists are being authorized at unprecedented levels. Guantanamo remains open and military commissions have been re-authorized. Rendition remains part of the CIA tool kit. While I personally agree with the President's decisions in these areas, I also believe that they indicate the distance between 'Obama the liberal idealist' and 'Obama the realist'.

Considering Afghanistan, while during the 2008 campaign Obama called Afghanistan 'the right war'  that he would win, the President has now decided that Afghanistan is no longer worth fighting. Although recent gains towards greater local security and local political sovereignty have been achieved, Obama has decided that Afghan freedom must be subjugated to domestic political expediency. The 'right war' worthy of continued sacrifice is now simply the war that will 'end on schedule'.

    Since January 2009, the President's idealist narrative has acted as a cloak for a traditional, short term realist rooted foreign policy. For me this is problematic. In a world where competing forces are struggling for freedom and justice, American foreign policy needs a sustaining clarity. Without such a clarity, America's enemies are emboldened and our allies (both real and potential) are alienated and discouraged. American foreign policy should never just be about navigating difficult storms abroad. Instead, it should be about bold ideas and confident resolve.

BBC Daily Politics

Although US (or Iraq...) based readers won't be able to view - for those in the UK, I will be on BBC 2 'The Daily Politics' show at 12 PM tomorrow (Thursday). I will be talking about the first Presidential debate.

The First Presidential Debate- It matters!

Tonight brings the first Presidential debate. From 2100-22.30 EST the President and Mitt Romney will meet at the University of Denver, Colorado, to debate domestic policy. This will be a closely watched match up. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the debate will offer Mitt Romney the opportunity to close his polling gap on the President. 

There are two main reasons why Romney has everything to gain from tonight's meeting.

1) The debate will be the first time that voters are able to see Obama and Romney in side by side contrast. This is important. The polls show that while some Americans regard Romney as aloof and emotionally detached, they largely feel comfortable with the President's personality. I believe that this is largely the result of a very successful (if not honest) effort by the Obama Campaign to paint Romney into a negative caricature. While Romney has made some recent mistakes, I believe that tonight will positively challenge voters to look more carefully at the former Governor and what he would offer if elected. I am confident that Romney will impress.

2) I strongly believe that while Romney's current polled supporters are consolidated behind him, I also believe that a considerable number of those who currently say that they will vote for the President are far less confirmed to pursuing that course of action - this is reflected in Obama's fluctuating poll figures. These swing voters have yet to be convinced that Romney can offer real, positive change. For them, Obama is the safe but unsatisfying bet. Tonight offers Romney a clear opportunity to re-calculate this enthusiasm equation. He needs to show his quiet warmth and resolve. He needs to show that he has the leadership potential and the ideas to bring get America back on track.

Now the major question. How does Romney win the debate and effectively begin to persuade voters to move out of the President's camp? The answer is simple. Romney must clarify the choice for voters. For me it's clear. A clear choice of more government interference, more taxes, more spending and more debt under Obama II. Or, an alternative choice of less government, a simplified pro-growth tax code with lower rates, alongside a government that seeks to empower rather than control the private sector. 

The facts are on Romney's side. This economic recovery has been the slowest in American history. The President's stimulus has spent hundreds of billions of dollars for very little return. In addition, while the President is great at bailing out the Unions, but he isn't so great at supporting American business. The unemployment rate remains seemingly immovable above 8.4%, each month thousands of workers are giving up looking for work and many thousands more are having their hours cut. Further, over the last four years, the public held national debt has grown by around $5.3 trillion (more than under Bush's two terms in office). And yet, the President's only solution to the debt crisis is to unleash demagogues and unveil budgets that get an 'F' for their math. This is a President without a record to run on. Romney needs to counter the false narrative of 'hope and change' with facts and alternatives.

Tonight's debate offers Romney a major opportunity that he needs to grasp. It's game time.

CNN - Presidential Debates - Important?

PS- My personal favorite Presidential Debate moment

The weakness of European Counter-Terrorist efforts

The UK's Counter-Terrorism effort is facing an increasingly precarious future. Today, Abu Hamza and co. are holding their final appeal (supposedly final) at the High Court. As of 18.52 GMT, there is no news on the outcome. Regardless, this case should have been resolved years ago. In April it was. But of course, the European system is heavily weighted in favor of terrorist defendants. Appeal follows appeal. It is seemingly irrelevant that these appeals are consistently based on frivolous creations by defendants (Abu Hamza sleep deprived etc). The rule in EU law appears to be this- 'The only limit on appeals is the limitation of your imagination'. While I personally believe that Al Qa'ida linked suspects should face military commissions,  I accept that most Europeans may prefer a different approach. 

However, I believe their current approach is fundamentally flawed.

It's not simply the incapacity of EU Courts to resolve cases. Another problem is found in the form of the weak sentences that EU courts often hand down to those convicted of the most serious terrorist offenses. In Scotland, mass murderers are released. In England, attempted mass murderers are given the opportunity to one day be released. This is absurdity incarnate.

At the final level - the operational side of UK counter-terrorism, other problems exist. Instead of welcoming the skill and professionalism of their Intelligence services, in recent months these services have become political whipping boys- a casual target for false moral prophets and politically motivated investigations. Investigations that will chill effective intelligence collection, degrade morale and endanger lives. 

The stakes in counter-terrorism are high. Groups like Al Qa'ida are motivated by a total war doctrine that seeks to destroy democracy. Making counter-terrorism operations more difficult and judicial processes more complex is in no one's interest. Except the terrorists. 

Sadly, the dangers posed by this evolving dynamic will become even more pronounced as global WMD proliferation accelerates.

Cofer Black - 'After 9/11, the gloves come off'