">

Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Romney: A New Prince for the Neocons

Late last week, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney delivered a high-profile address on foreign policy at the Citadel in South Carolina. Shortly before the address, he released an extensive listing of his foreign policy advisors and a white paper discussing his views in greater detail.

 

Although he has been cast by the media as representing a relatively moderate business wing of the Republican Party vis-à-vis his tea party rivals, Romney has revealed himself to be heavily influenced by political factions, like the neoconservatives, who promote fantastical notions about American power and exceptionalism. Romney’s advisors include prominent Iraq war architects and other Bush-era hardliners, including Elliot Cohen, Michael Chertoff, and Dan Senor, as well as leading neocon opinion makers like Robert Kagan. Indeed, as noted by Jim Lobe of Inter Press Service, with Kagan, Senor, and Eric Edelman on board, Romney has netted three of the four board members of the Foreign Policy Initiative, a successor organization to the influential Project for a New American Century—perhaps explaining his speech’s repeated references to the need for the 21st century to be “an American century.” Also listed was Walid Phares, a well-known Islamophobic commentator previously involved with the right-wing Phalanges militia in Lebanon, which committed numerous atrocities against Lebanon’s Palestinians and Muslims during the country’s civil war. Quipped one observer: “It seems unlikely that Romney knew much about this chapter in Phares’ career when he tapped him as an advisor.”

 

On balance, Romney’s declarations have been described as light on detail—limited mostly to his support for an even bigger defense budget and a bigger navy—and heavy on exceptionalist rhetoric, which Lobe says borders on “messianic.” "God did not create this country to be a nation of followers," said Romney. "America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world, or someone else will."

 

Some neoconservative commentators did note the paucity of policy detail. Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, while rating the speech good overall, expressed concerns about Romney’s wishy-washy statements on Afghanistan and said his remarks about Pakistan had “no clarity at all.” Pletka’s AEI colleague Marc Thiessen agreed, calling Romney’s address “very good” but containing “not a word about ‘victory’ or even ‘success’ in Afghanistan.”

 

In general, however, prominent neoconservative writers lauded Romney for his affirmations of exceptionalist rhetoric, contrasting Romney’s approach with that of President Obama or of more isolationist-minded Republicans. Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin, for instance, wrote that while “[s]ome on the left will deride Romney’s speech as a rerun of the neoconservatism of the George W. Bush administration,” the speech proved that “belief in a strong foreign policy and a willingness to defend American values and allies is still the mainstream position in the GOP.” Also writing at Commentary, Max Boot called Romney’s statements “a classic ‘peace through strength’ foreign policy broadly in line with the foreign policy of Republican presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush.” Similarly, Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin praised Romney’s white paper for “devising a roadmap” out of the “weakness and moral confusion that have been the hallmarks of the Obama years.”

 

Of course, asserting America’s greatness is a dubious solution to the sundry U.S. foreign policy quagmires around the world. But with the implosion of Rick Perry’s campaign and widespread popular fatigue for U.S. wars, leading U.S. neocons may feel like they’ve caught a break with Romney. They’ll only have to hope he doesn’t change his mind.

 

—Peter Certo

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share