Romney’s leadership!
Three days ago, Mitt Romney wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal talking about the need to change course in the Middle East. He believes that the unfolding realities in the Middle East are not “bumps in the road” as Obama described it but rather key matters that jeopardize the American security. Romney argues that his country under the leadership of Obama is not shaping events in the Middle East but is under the mercy of these evolving events. He criticizes the failure of the American administration of steering events to serve the interest of the United States and warns that his country may get “pulled into the maelstrom.” In a nutshell, Romney calls for a new strategy that can redress and address the “negative” consequences of the recent developments in the Middle East in such away to protect the interests of the United States and of course those of Israel.
The piece written by Romney reflects one thing: He does not want to understand the fact that changes taking place at the global level are beyond the control of his country. Obviously, he talks as if America is still living in the Cold War era. For this reason, his articulation about what his country should do may not resonate well across the universe. Let me examine one line included in his article. Romney wrote: “Finally, our values have been misapplied—and misunderstood—by a president who thinks that weakness will win favor with our adversaries.” Romney’s stress on values is a smokescreen to conceal the basic facts that constitute the hallmark of American foreign policy toward the Middle East.
Aaron David Miller once remarked that the United States under the leadership of the Republican President Bush has become less respected and less feared in the Middle East. I think that Aaron David Miller is correct in his characterization of the retreating status of the United States in the Middle East. In fact, the declining status of the United States was caused by the very Republican policies that aimed to reshape the region in the Middle East. When President Bush came to power in 2000, the United States was seen as a positive state thus respected by all. And yet — under Bush — the United States acted as if it was revisionist state! This explains why the surplus in budget during the last year of President Clinton is no longer there.
Bush’s adventurist and unilateral foreign policy cost American in blood and treasure. Obama inherited a relatively much weaker America and he has been picking pieces ever since. Now Romney is critical of Obama’s conduct as if his party is innocent. Commenting on the Arab Spring, Romney criticized Obama for not having a strategy for success. Yet, Romney seems to run out of idea as he himself does not offer any meaningful strategy for success. Missing yet the definition of what constitutes a success.
Implicit in his article is that success in the Middle East is nothing but supporting American partners in a volatile and uncertain region. Is this not what Obama has been doing all along! It seems that Romney has forgotten that there is a bipartisan agreement on this issue. Not surprisingly, Romney is not interested in truth as much as his is interested in presenting himself as a credible alternative to Obama’s foreign policy.
Frankly, the American negative image in the Middle East is a result of policies that both parties have followed for decades. There is no hope for Washington to ameliorate this image unless it introduces substantial change in a set of policies, chief among them its position on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Short of doing that, Washington will always face challenges in this part of the world.
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News' point of view
