The last debate between President Barack Obama and Governor
Mitt Romney was in many ways anti-climactic. Some reports suggested the Romney
decided to play it safe, in part because he is now ahead in many polls and
catching up with the incumbent chief executive in key swing states like
Colorado and Ohio. Obama has abandoned North Carolina and may soon leave
Virginia, two Southern states that he won by wide margins in 2008.

The third debate lacked the passion of the second. Without a
doubt, Romney won the first, came out swinging in the second, but then in the
third winded down into some bogged policies of bloated bureaucracy, spending
without cuts, followed by frequent approval for President Obama’s foreign
policy.

Two telling phrases from Barack Obama included: “Someone
ought tell the Governor that we no longer use horses or bayonets.” Obama’s one
voucher for efficiency instead of spending should not be ignored when it comes
to military spending.

“The 1980’s called, they want their foreign policy back!” This
taunt bore little relevance. Romney has not framed his foreign policy on
stymieing Russia’s autocratic influence. Still, sanctions alone will not deter a
fanatical Iran.

Governor Romney rightly established that this country cannot
kill its way to peace and stability in the Middle East. The radical Islamist
agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood, coupled with incessant anti-Jew, anti-Israeli
propaganda in Palestine is damaging to our standing and stability in the Middle
East.  Yet what can we do about it? The
United States State Department can safeguard our personnel and our national
interests in the region, but Pan-Arabism is giving way to Islamic Radicalism,
with militant fanatics gaining power in Tunisia and Egypt, and Al-Qaeda is
rising slowly in the ranks.

The tribal dynamics across the Middle East are beyond our
control. Frustrated by the world-wide Great Recession and economic and
political stagnation, a rising generation of tech-savvy Arab youth are restless
for opportunity, yet no legacy of liberal democracy. The old order of American
pragmatism has ended. Neither candidate would admit it, but letting Syria’s
civil war play out may be the only option, for A post-Assad Syria will succumb
to the same cancerous Islamo-fascism spreading 
across the region.

Romney’s most noteworthy comment had nothing to do with
foreign policy, but our nation’s domestic education policy: “I don’t want the
federal government getting deeper into education.” Finally, a presidential
candidate outlined the unrelenting failure of federal intrusion. Too bad that
President Obama cannot parade his successes on education – waivers for No Child
Left Behind and “Race to the Top”: state competition for federal funds based on
reforms  — without offending one core
supporter: the teachers unions.

Yet for all his pleading for less federal government in
education, Romney promised many times  to
rescind the Congressional sequester of one trillion dollars in order to beef up
our military, with no concrete cuts to offset the spending. This country lacks
a plan for financial austerity, including necessary reductions to our armed
forces. Neither candidate mentioned closing military bases spread over one
hundred countries. Neither candidate offered to stop wasteful humanitarian aid
which “blesses” our allies and our enemies. Central Asian ally and recipient of
American foreign aid, Pakistan defines “frenemy”, harboring Osama bin Laden,
incarcerating the doctor who helped lead to his death, and refusing to stem the
tide of Taliban operatives flowing into Afghanistan. Why are they still getting
aid?

Afghanistan! When will we have a chief executive who does
not shy away from getting our troops out of that Graveyard of Empires? No
presidential contender can claim any seriousness or respect without an
immediate draw-down from that nation. The United States of American cannot hold
down every tribal conflict around the globe. Whatever efforts our armed forces
have accomplished in the region, what can our diplomatic corps expect to
accomplish in a failed nation-state torn about by virulent tribal rivalries and
controlled by a junta of corruption in Kabul?

On a more promising note, both candidates attacked our
country’s fractious relationship with China. The rampant intellectual piracy
and counterfeiting that our Asian frenemy perpetrates against us cannot
continue, but what can our leaders do if they refuse to deal dutifully without our
nation’s growing dependence on foreign creditors, like China? Since
sequestration has been taken off the table, and tax cuts are all the rage, how
does Romney plan on cutting the spending and bringing down the national debt?

I cannot say that I miss Ron Paul – his foreign policy was
wise domestically, but absolutely naïve in regards to Iran – but a serious
discussion about our country’s limitations in military, diplomacy, and finance
needed more attention and pledges than prospective voters heard last night.

I still support Romney. I agree that President Obama has
conducted an apology tour coupled with hopes and dreams which have faded in the
face of fanatical regimes who refuse to recognize the right of Israel ( or us!)
to exist. As for spending, a dedicated Tea Party caucus coupled with stalwart
liberals must hold the next President accountable. As Admiral Mullen declared, debt
is our greatest threat.
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x