via Due Diligence: Where the candidates differ on foreign policy – CBS News.
The president wants the military to focus more on nontraditional threats like al Qaeda, and no longer wants the United States to serve as the world’s policeman. He noted on Monday that America spends more on the military than the next ten countries combined – which you only say if you think America is carrying too large a burden.
It can be difficult to tease out differences between the candidates on specific issues. But when it comes to the larger, overarching philosophy, there is a clear difference: Romney wants to spend more money to expand America’s traditional military role in the world, while the president wants to transition to a new era in which America plays a fundamentally different role. And that philosophical chasm is more important than the lack of difference on many individual issues.
I must admit that I didn’t watch the final presidential debate. I was just too burned out on politics at the time and I had to get up early the next day. I knew I wouldn’t sleep well if I watched it since I would be constantly going over it in my mind until the early hours of the morning. In the following days I did read the reports but the one above got my attention!
It seems Mr. Romney wants more of the same for our military complex. At the same time he says we are going bankrupt he wants to add to their budgets even while he is cutting the safety net for our citizens. If you have been visiting this blog if only for a short while you know that I am abhorred at the money we spend on being policemen of the world. To me it is totally absurd to spend more than the rest of the world combined while even talking about cutting for “the least of these”.
I knew Mr. Romney and especially Mr. Ryan wanted to do more of the same but I was very pleasantly surprised to see President Obama openly say he wants to go a different approach. It took guts to even suggest that in some circles. I couldn’t agree more with his stand to re-configure our military. Mr. Romney wants to give the generals more money than they even ask for. The president wants them to focus on keeping us safe.
For that reason alone he would have my vote even if he didn’t get it for a number of other reasons. 68% of us are war-weary. We want to get out of the policemen of the world mode. It is good to see that at least one of the presidential candidates hear our plea.
9 thoughts on “Where the candidates differ on foreign policy…. thank heavens….”
Obama and Romney were very close on defense. Romney’s difference was he wanted peace through strength. I really don’t think Obama is much different there. Both want most of our troops on our soil. Basically, most of the forces are being laid off as we type.
Neither want to get more involved in the Middle East (except to protect Israel—but I think Israel can do a good job by themselves). Both want to work economics into the picture.They did disagree on the approach with China. China is difficult to read unless you understand the culture….It will be hard to get that one right.
It really wasn’t much of a dispute. “Saber rattling”—but not much else.
If you are worried about Vice Presidents—both Biden and Ryan are more hawkish then their potential Presidents. Thank goodness the chances of either man taking over are slim.
Good Morning Janette. I’m not sure if Mr. Romney is a “me too” with the things you mentioned or if he really believes them. He seems to flip on a dime so you never know. But one thing he made clear was that he wants to increase military spending about $2.3 trillion over the next decade. I’m not sure what he wants that increase for if he believes in reducing our military presence abroad?
I am not worried about the VPs being hawkish but Mr. Ryan’s worldview mirroring his hero Ayn Rand is what scares me about him. He has made it very clear that he wants to shred the safety net to give the 1% more tax breaks. No matter how remote, I don’t want to take a chance that he would end up in the oval office.
I’d like to see where you are getting the 2.3 T spend on military of Romney. What is your source on that?
Janette, it is in the source article:
Underneath all the agreement on issues, however, was one major difference between the two men. Romney has vowed to mandate that military spending be set at 4 percent of gross domestic product. If the economy doesn’t tank, that means a significant increase in military spending — $2.3 trillion over 10 years, according to an estimate.
It comes from a well respected think tank on military studies quoted by both Republicans and Democrats. (Center for a New American Security).
Notice the word “mandate” here. Even if they don’t need it they will get it.
When it comes to helping out those caught up in a natural disaster Romney claims that we can’t afford it but wants to increase spending on the military. Why? Because increased spending on the military will enrich those in the military industrial complex who are funding his campaign. Instead of For the people and by the people meaning all of us Romney believes in For the 1% and by the 1$ and to hell with the rest of us.
Maybe this is what they mean when they keep calling themselves the job creators…they just don’t mention that the jobs are in the military:)
Don’t worry. The military is being cut (and should be). Your source…look it up. It is considered left leaning. Has 30 members. The two founders (2007) now work in policy for the Obama administration.
As in most cases (certainly Obama learned this) he won’t really know the direction for military until the person is in the office.
Prying for my family and friends in the East this morning.
So, Janette we are just to trust Mr. Romney that he will do what is right. The trouble with this is that what he sees as right changes from day-to-day.
Just because an org is “left leaning” does not mean that their facts are wrong. I stand by my words here.
Just kidding, Janette:)