By Lucy Cheseldine and SoRelle Wyckoff
It’s been said that to understand an individual’s priorities, you look at their checkbook. The same can be said about governments’ and their leaders’ priorities – you must look at where the money goes.
The U.S. has one of the largest military budgets in the world. As part of the Budget Control Act passed by Congress in 2011, military spending will be cut by around $487 billion over the next ten years.
President Obama has maintained that he wants to give the military what is necessary to function, focusing on efficient and essential investments. Governor Romney’s plan to increase military spending, while appealing to a portion of his conservative following, is unrealistic. Our economy does not have the luxury to dedicate billions of dollars a day to unnecessary foreign aid and forces abroad. The allocation of more funds to the military would mean a subtraction from funds elsewhere – funds Romney has been unable to specify.
These promises show Romney’s misunderstanding that national security requires more than whipping out a checkbook.
In a world in which America has become a symbol of guidance on foreign policy, Obama has been watched closely. His handling of the Libyan attack on the U.S. embassy was another topic of Romney’s scrutiny. But contrary to Romney’s claims, Obama did, in fact, label the events as a “terrorist” attack, and the White House has launched an investigation into finding out specifics.
In Syria, too, Obama is less inclined to take a full-on approach. Instead, he wants to promote what he calls a “steady, thoughtful leadership” in working toward some form of resolution. Rather than arming the rebels, Obama wants to build a more sustainable and measured government through diplomacy with Syria.
Both candidates understand that the situation in the Middle East is fragile, and neither has laid out any solid policy on how to directly approach the current situation. It is, however, in the thread of Obama’s foreign approach that he wants to build a sustainable democratic setup in the Middle East, without having to use force.
Of course, there are some ties the U.S. wants to maintain. Both candidates uphold policy to use military force against any threat to Israel. Obama said Israel is “a true friend and our closest ally in the region.”
The sanctions placed on Iran have been scrutinized over the past few years. Obama is not willing to increase these anymore, as they stand at the toughest rate they have ever been. Romney, on the other hand, has insisted repeatedly that he plans to make the sanctions tighter. Doing so would merely suffocate a country that already despises the United States, causing a potential explosion of anger and force.
On top of this, America is still fighting a war in Afghanistan, a war the president has promised to end by 2014. Void of troops, the country will be independent to build its own government, and Obama has pledged that this date is final and not subject to change. This promotes a more bridge-building image of U.S. foreign policy, rather than one of direct military action. Obama is concerned with sustainable developments in countries like Afghanistan to cut down military intervention where it is unnecessary, resulting in a smoother exit and a cleaner cut.
The Middle East is unpredictable, to be certain, but one of President Obama’s greatest traits is his ability to communicate effectively and calmly. Obama is relatable which is key in communicating with volatile country leaders, many of whom have their own history of colonization and awkward tension.
We need a president who has a powerful presence in diplomacy. The idea of sending Mitt Romney to negotiate with foreign leaders is worrisome when looking not only at his past foreign relations missteps, but his inability to relay certain facts in a convincing and appropriate way.
Flexing and increasing the might of the American military will not earn us more allies overseas. We must, as both candidates said, focus on ourselves domestically first. But, unlike Romney believes, this means being realistic about our military spending and prioritizing our funding correctly. This also means being realistic about the United State’s foreign involvement, understanding we are not necessarily in a position to continue dominating the War on Terror and limiting our funds only to those countries that truly need it.
Romney’s desire to prove America’s dominance through beefing up our military is an unsustainable approach to foreign affairs. Obama’s experience proves he is prepared for what the next four years will bring the United States and the world.
