Passivity has led to disaster and disaster will lead to catastrophe, Re: Romney: Hope Is Not A Strategy, Human Events, October 8, 2012

Mitt Romney gave a speech in Virginia this morning about the foreign policy he would implement if he was elected President next month.

He made the basic principle that his foreign policy would be based on very clear. It is ‘Hope is not enough…if you want something to happen the way you want it to you have to make it happen, not sit back and hope that it will.’

He also drew a very clear distinction between President Obama’s strategy of passivity based on ‘leading from behind’ as the President puts it and reacting to events after they unfold and his own strategy based on strength, leadership and action.

So what would actually Romney do, what concrete measures would he actually take?

Here are a few.

He would get serious about keeping Iran from developing and possessing nuclear weapons. He would let the Iranians know in no uncertain terms that the United States will not let them become a nuclear power and that he will use the U.S. military if necessary to keep nuclear weapons out of their hands.

He would strengthen America’s ties to Israel and reaffirm America’s commitment to her security and survival.

He would reverse Obama’s cuts to the American military and maintain its status as the strongest, most capable military in the world in order to protect Americans and American interests at home and abroad.

He would use foreign aid as an incentive and would ensure that recipients have to meet certain conditions to keep on receiving it…foreign aid would not simply be handed out any more, it would be handed out with conditions and withdrawn if those conditions weren’t met.

He would recommit the U.S. to a free, democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living in peace and security with Israel.

Those are a few of the concrete measures Romney said he would take in his speech. There were many others as well but the basic principle behind all of them is the same.

The consequences of Obama’s strategy of passivity and ‘leading from behind’ for America and Americans, the people of the Middle East and the free world in general have been disastrous and would be catastrophic if he is elected again. Romney knows this and so do most other thinking, aware people, including America’s enemies, which is why they are doing everything they can to get Obama re-elected and to keep Romney from becoming president. A second term for Obama would play right into the hands of America’s enemies and go a long way to destroying the country and freedom and democracy along with it, if it didn’t actually do it. If Romney was elected on the other hand America and Americans would climb out of the dire straits they are in thanks to Obama, freedom and democracy would be encouraged and strengthened around the world and the country would be much safer and more secure as a result, all the while remaining faithful to its values and institutions.

Romney opened his speech by severely criticizing Obama for his handling of the recent attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi which resulted in the deaths of four Americans and the concomitant attacks on American embassies throughout the Middle East. Rightly so. Benghazi was a national tragedy and Obama’s reaction, including all the lies, distortions, cover ups and attempts to manipulate public opinion, was disgraceful and treasonous. His reaction to the embassy attacks was disgraceful and just short of treasonous. Romney was absolutely right to go after him because the wounds are still fresh and Obama’s behaviour needs to be a campaign issue. Good for Romney for making it one.

Romney closed his speech by explaining why his foreign policy would be based on the principle I wrote about earlier. His explanation is instructive and well worth quoting.

Here it is.

“I believe that if America does not lead, others will-others who do not share our interests and values-and the world will grow darker, for our friends and for us. America’s security and the cause of freedom cannot endure four more years like the last four years. I am running for President because I believe the leader of the free world has a duty, to our citizens, and to our friends everywhere, to use America’s great influence-wisely, with solemnity and without false pride, but also firmly and actively-to shape events in ways that secure our interests, further our values, prevent conflict and make the world better-not perfect, but better.”

There you have it. It is abundantly clear that Obama’s foreign policy strategy of passivity and ‘leading from behind’ has been disastrous and would soon be catastrophic if he was returned to office. It is also abundantly clear that Romney’s foreign policy strategy of strength, action and leading from the front would make the world a much better place if he was elected.

Except for those who want to destroy America and her friends and allies and wipe out freedom and democracy that is.

Comments are closed.