Word to Wise for Pakistanis: 'Moderate Mitt' May Be Fleeting (Dawn, Pakistan)
"Mr. Romney
came across as measured and reasonable. In fact, there was little to separate
the policies of Obama from those of Romney. ... If Romney does win the election
two weeks from now, he is expected to choose his foreign and national security teams
from among the ranks of neocons and hardliners. So 'moderate
Mitt' may just be a temporary phenomenon, designed to tick the
commander-in-chief box for an electorate disinterested in the outside world."
The Debates are over: Republican nominee Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama shake hands at the end of the third and final debate, this one on foreign policy. Eighteen foreign countries were mentioned during the clash, and not counting Russia, only one of them was in Europe - Greece.
THE final U.S. presidential debate was the first real
opportunity to assess Governor Mitt Romney’s likely foreign policy - if he's
elected president in November. With the race tightening, the possibility of a
Romney presidency is real. Since the U.S. electorate is focused on domestic
matters, little is known about Romney's worldview and what his administration's
foreign policy would look like. Surprisingly at the debate on Monday, on
Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mr. Romney came across as measured and reasonable. In
fact, there was little to separate the policies of President Obama from those
of a possible President Romney.
The presidential contender embraced the Obama Administration’s
2014 withdrawal deadline in Afghanistan; endorsed the policy of aggressively going
after al-Qaeda, including with the use of drones; and berated neither
Afghanistan nor Pakistan. When asked by the moderator if it was time for the U.S.
to divorce Pakistan, Mr. Romney responded: “No, it’s not time to divorce a
nation on earth that has a hundred nuclear weapons and is on the way to double
that at some point, a nation that has serious threats from terrorist groups.”
The bottom line?: Pakistan’s stability is of deep concern to the United States,
but that doesn't translate into a policy of isolation or containment, which
would have devastating consequences for Pakistan’s interconnectedness with the world.
Of course, a presidential debate does not make for a
properly fleshed-out foreign policy. Both Mr. Obama, whose approach to
Afghanistan and Pakistan, despite all the talk of clarity and purposefulness,
is racked by contradiction and internal squabbling, and Mr. Romney, offered sparse
details. Conditioning aid, not cutting Pakistan loose, not isolating Pakistan -
none of that really reflects either a vision or the nuts and bolts of policy.
If Mr. Romney does win the election two weeks from now, he
is expected to choose his foreign and national security teams from among the
ranks of neocons and hardliners. So "moderate Mitt"
may just be a temporary phenomenon, designed to tick the commander-in-chief box
for an electorate disinterested in the outside world.
