(MintPress) – As President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney prepare to square off for round two of the presidential debates next week at Hofstra University, the candidates will try to differentiate their foreign policy credentials to appeal to target constituencies and undecided voters. While Obama has made cuts to the military budget and has shown a willingness to reduce nuclear stockpiles, his record of quiet intervention, sometimes through drone warfare in Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan, reflects a strong-armed approach to international conflicts and economic relations not unlike what Romney is likely to support.
While the economy remains the most important issue for voters this election, candidates’ foreign policy positions will have tremendous implications for possible invasions in Syria and Iran.
Mitt Romney openly adheres to the prevailing neoconservative Reagan Doctrine that values use of robust military power to achieve economic and political goals; even when those goals are at odds with popular opinion and international law. Obama, in many cases, has adhered to the same principles, but is restricted to the extent he can “boast” these actions to a Democratic constituency that stands largely in opposition to pre-emptive military action and armed conflict in the Middle East and other areas of the world.
Military spending
The biggest foreign policy difference between Romney and Obama remains defense spending. Obama vowed last year to reduce overall defense spending by $500 billion over the next decade, however, the U.S. still tops the world in its military budget.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the U.S. spends an estimated $711 billion on its annual military budget. This represents the largest military spending of any country in the world, far outstripping the other major military leaders — China, Russia, U.K., France, Japan and Saudi Arabia — in total combined spending.
Similarly, Obama has shown a commitment to reduce nuclear stockpiles, a decision heralded as an important step toward nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) December 2010, slashing nuclear weapons stockpiles, a move that has been celebrated by some liberals as a helpful agreement, thawing relations between Cold War adversaries.
Under the terms of the treaty, both countries must limit deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, approximately a 60 percent reduction from the original START treaty. Washington and Moscow also agreed to limit Deployed and Non-deployed Launchers (missile tubes and bombers) to 800.
The treaty reduced nuclear stockpiles of both countries considerably. However, the massive arsenals of both countries remain large — large enough to eliminate whole countries and threaten global stability.
While Obama has taken steps to reduce hostility with Russia, the quantitative military edge still places America as the unquestioned military leader, and in turn, the unquestioned political hegemon in the world. Washington and Moscow remain far from being close allies and frequently clash in the U.N. Security Council during talks about intervention in Syria and when the U.S. talks of expanding the NATO missile defense system in Eastern Europe.
However, Romney will likely worsen the already tenuous U.S.-Russia relationship as the former Massachusetts governor has called openly for arming the Syrian rebels, over-throwing the Assad regime, and if necessary, invading Syria to unseat one of Russia’s closest allies in the region.
Additionally, many Democrats, libertarians and even moderate Republicans have criticized Romney’s expansionist, some would say aggressive foreign policy while also supporting government cutbacks at home.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the son of the recently retired Ron Paul (R-Texas) has publicly criticized Romney’s support for increasing military spending, a move that the libertarian senator believes is inconsistent with Romney’s calls for privatization and fiscal conservatism.
“Romney chose to criticize President Obama for seeking to cut a bloated Defense Department and for not being bellicose enough in the Middle East, two assertions with which I cannot agree. Defense and war spending has grown 137 percent since 2001. That kind of growth is not sustainable,” Paul wrote in an Op-Ed this week.
The Romney-Ryan budget calls for fiscal austerity at home, including cuts to social programs. However, these cuts do not extend to the military as Romney has called to increase the size of military spending even when no country, or group of countries poses a credible risk to U.S. security. On this point, the candidates may differ some on defense spending.
Arming Syrian rebels
Mass protests following the release of an amateur film insulting Islam and the prophet Muhammad have been utilized as fodder to accuse the president of taking an apologetic, soft stance on the protests across the Arab world that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, three American embassy workers and dozens of civilians in Cairo, Tunis, Khartoum and other cities across the Middle East.
However, Obama has consistently used military force, sometimes illegally, without congressional approval to achieve foreign policy objectives in much the same way that his predecessor, George W. Bush did in Iraq.
Previous reports indicate that the CIA has been operating inside Syria and Southern Turkey for several months by providing material support and training to rebels fighting the Assad regime. The U.S. could be forced to intervene if Turkey, an ally and NATO member invokes Article 4 of the charter calling upon member states to collectively defend allies of the security pact.
Earlier this week, Romney called openly for the U.S. to arm the Syrian rebels and to possibly expand the use of military force against Iran, saying, “Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran – rather than sitting on the sidelines.”
While Obama has shown support for the rebels through CIA action, he has stopped short of publicly calling for the U.S. to arm the rebels and intervene in Syria. Even more distant is talk of an intervention in Iran which, according to retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, is akin to forceful regime change.
“And the only way you are going to get regime change and no nuclear weapon, you are going to need invasion. And that is going to take 500,000 troops, 10 years and $2 trillion to $3 trillion,” said Wilkerson in a previous statement.
In this sense, Romney and Obama offer slightly different approaches to support for Syrian rebels and divergent approaches to the possibility of an intervention in Iran, a more difficult subject to broach given the overwhelming opposition to the current war in Afghanistan. Mitt Romney, however, possesses the political space within his party to brandish military intervention as a symbol of American strength and dominance.
Focus on East Asia
One area, however, where there is significant overlap in candidates’ positions is East Asia, an area of the world both Romney and Obama believe to be of critical importance as the center of economic power continues to shifts away from Europe and North America and toward China.
The U.S. runs a significant trade deficit with China, contributing significantly to the spiraling U.S. debt. According to the U.S.-China Business Council, the U.S. ran a $295 billion deficit with China in 2011.
Both candidates have, at times, criticized Beijing for currency manipulation exacerbating imbalanced trade that favors Chinese manufacturers. President Obama has already vowed to increase U.S. troop presence in Australia and other Pacific rim countries. Romney, similarly, supports increases to U.S. influence in the region and has called for increased arms sales to Taiwan, a move that has already inflamed tensions between China and the U.S.
“In the face of China’s accelerated military build-up, the United States and our allies must maintain appropriate military capabilities to discourage any aggressive or coercive behavior by China against its neighbors,” the Romney campaign website says.
In response, the state-run Chinese newspaper, “China Daily,” lambasted Romney’s proposed China policy saying, “By any standard, the U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s China policy, as outlined on his official campaign website, is an outdated manifestation of a Cold War mentality. It endorses the ‘China threat’ theory and focuses on containing China’s rise in the Asia-Pacific through bolstering the robust U.S. military presence in the region.”
While the candidates may differ in rhetorical commitments, on most foreign policy issues, including engagement with China, they remain similar if not identical in their outlooks. After 11 years of war in Afghanistan and over 2,000 troop deaths, Americans have become more hesitant to support armed military conflict for moral and economic reasons. While both candidates favor a robust military presence in East Asia and in Middle East conflict zones, intervention in Iran and Syria may not be palatable given public opposition at home and abroad.