Looking Closely at Statements From Candidates on Foreign Policy
|
Version 0 of 1. Who knew that fact-checking the sole foreign policy debate of the presidential campaign would include the ranking of Massachusetts schools and how best to administer Medicaid? Repeatedly, the two candidates swerved to the economic issues that have dominated the campaign. Even the dispute over the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, which was expected to be a centerpiece, got less attention than the now-familiar dispute over what kind of bankruptcy Mitt Romney had proposed for the ailing auto industry. But when Bob Schieffer, the moderator, wrestled them back onto foreign policy, the two candidates offered starkly different views of the world. President Obama described a tough, realistic America engaged with allies in “decimating” Al Qaeda. Mr. Romney, even as he markedly moderated his tone and spoke repeatedly of “peace” as his goal, described a far scarier world in which Iran is four years closer to a nuclear weapon. In many cases, the contrasting claims were a matter of perspective, and on several occasions Mr. Romney said explicitly that he agreed with the president. But both men also made statements that were misleading or exaggerated or that contradicted previous statements. Here are some of the highlights: Change in Tone on Iran Mr. Romney’s remark that he wants to use “peaceful and diplomatic means” to persuade Iran not to pursue its nuclear program was a striking departure from the more hawkish tone he has used throughout the campaign. He urged preparations for war against Iran last year in an opinion article in The Wall Street Journal. “Si vis pacem, para bellum,” he wrote. “That is a Latin phrase, but the ayatollahs will have no trouble understanding its meaning from a Romney administration: If you want peace, prepare for war.” Mr. Romney also called for more muscle-flexing aimed at Iran in a speech on Oct. 8 at the Virginia Military Institute. “For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions — not just words — that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated,” he said. Mr. Romney has long been dismissive of Mr. Obama’s attempts to use diplomacy to persuade Iran to abandon its weapons programs. “In his first TV interview as president, he said we should talk to Iran,” Mr. Romney said in his speech at the Republican National Convention in late August. “We’re still talking, and Iran’s centrifuges are still spinning.” Last year, when asked in an interview what military action he would consider against Iran, Mr. Romney said, “There’s a lot more information I need to have to know what type of military strike would be appropriate and effective.” “Would you be prepared to do it unilaterally if need be?” Bret Baier of Fox News asked. “Of course,” Mr. Romney said. MICHAEL COOPER Troops in Iraq Mr. Obama suggested that Mr. Romney was mistaken in seeking to keep 10,000 American troops in Iraq. But the Obama administration initially sought to do just that — but never managed to negotiate an agreement allowing them to remain. Mr. Obama sought to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would have allowed United States troops to stay in Iraq after 2011. Initially, the Obama administration was prepared to keep up to 10,000 troops in Iraq. Later, the Obama administration lowered the number to about 5,000. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki indicated that he might be willing. But the Iraqis did not agree to an American demand that such an agreement be submitted to their Parliament for approval, a step the Obama administration insisted on to ensure that any American troops that stayed would be immune from prosecution under Iraqi law. Mr. Obama relied on Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as well as American officials in Iraq to negotiate the agreement. The president spoke to Mr. Maliki only twice during the negotiations. Also, the administration did not begin formal talks with the Iraqis until June 2, 2011, leaving little time for negotiation. After the talks broke down, the Obama administration withdrew the remaining American troops in December 2011, the deadline set for withdrawing all American forces from Iraq under the Status of Forces Agreement. Iran has taken advantage of the absence of American forces to fly hundreds of tons of military equipment through Iraqi airspace to Syria. MICHAEL R. GORDON The Arab Spring Mr. Obama spoke of the role the United States has played during the Arab Spring uprisings, saying, “We have stood on the side of democracy.” But that is not true across the board. Consider Bahrain, where thousands of people rose up more than a year ago to demand political liberties, social equality and an end to corruption. Its Sunni monarchy, seen by the United States and Saudi Arabia as a strategic ally and a bulwark against Iran, was never left to face the rage on its own. More than a thousand Saudi troops helped put down the uprising, and the United States called for political changes but strengthened its support for the government. MICHAEL COOPER Afghan Withdrawal Has Mr. Romney changed his view on an Afghan withdrawal and timeline? About an hour into the debate, Mr. Romney seemed to adjust his long-held position. In the past, he has said that while he wanted to follow the same 2014 withdrawal timeline as the Obama administration and NATO allies, he would seek the advice of military commanders on the ground before making a decision. This prompted critics to suggest that Mr. Romney was giving himself wiggle room to keep regular combat brigades in Afghanistan past 2014. (Both the Obama administration and the Romney campaign have talked about keeping a small residual force, presumably of Special Operations forces and military trainers, after 2014 — if the government of Afghanistan allows it.) But on Monday night, Mr. Romney seemed to draw a much clearer line that he would take all regular combat troops out of Afghanistan by 2014, without the caveat of first asking military commanders whether they believed that was a good idea. In response to a question about whether he would withdraw troops even if it were obvious that the Afghans were not able to handle their own security, Mr. Romney said, “We’re going to be finished by 2014, and when I’m president, we’ll make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014.” He made no mention of first getting input from military commanders, as he has in the past. “We’re going to be able to make that transition by the end of 2014, so our troops will come home at that point,” Mr. Romney said. RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. ‘Apology Tour’ Mr. Obama responded to Mr. Romney’s claim that he had undertaken a foreign “apology tour” as “probably the biggest whopper that’s been told during the course of this campaign.” Fact-checkers have repeatedly found the claim to be inaccurate. Mr. Obama has admitted American failings at times — and like President George W. Bush has apologized for specific acts of American wrongdoing abroad — but he has never explicitly apologized for American values or principles. Republicans often refer to Mr. Obama’s 2009 speech in France in which he said that “there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” But critics typically ignore what Mr. Obama said next: “But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what’s bad.” In other words, Mr. Obama was saying that the United States and Europe had at times each dealt unfairly with each other; he never said he was sorry for American values or diplomacy. RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. China and Cheap Tires President Obama said that China was flooding the United States with cheap tires and that he put a stop to it and saved jobs. In fact, many economists criticize the administration’s action. In 2009, the Obama administration unilaterally imposed a duty on imports of Chinese tires, a move sought by the United Steelworkers union. It was one of nine trade enforcement actions taken by the United States against China under Mr. Obama and, some economists argue, the most questionable. The tariff protected 1,200 American jobs at most, according to a study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. But the same study found that the tariff cost American consumers $1.1 billion last year alone in higher-priced tires, or about $900,000 per job. Moreover, China responded by slapping tariffs on imports of chicken parts that cost American poultry producers an estimated $1 billion in lost sales. Last month, the Obama administration let the tire tariff quietly expire. SHARON LaFRANIERE |