Romney Playing With Fire on Afghanistan
February 2, 2012 | 5:24 PM
Mitt Romney's sharp criticism Wednesday of President Obama's newly planned troop withdrawal in Afghanistan raises a thorny question for the presumptive GOP presidential nominee: Why is he intent on aligning himself with such an unpopular position? The answer might lie in a candidate willing to lose a battle to win the war.
The Republican front-runner, speaking at a rally in Nevada, said the Obama Administration showed "naiveté" when Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced the country will end combat operations in Afghanistan sometime in 2013.
"He announced that so the Taliban hears it, the Pakistanis hear it, the Afghan leaders hear it," Romney said of Panetta during a rally in Las Vegas, according to CNN. "Why in the world do you go to the people that you are fighting with and tell them the day you are pulling out your troops? It makes absolutely no sense."
The latest fusillade is not the first time Romney has taken a hawkish tone -- after initially signaling a moderate stance toward foreign policy, the former Bay State governor has outlined a vision that calls for continued aggressive use of U.S. force across the world. Among other criticisms, he blasted the removal of troops from Iraq and, even amid a time of government austerity, urged increased spending on defense (particularly the Navy). The rhetoric is more or less in line with a party that, despite the neo-isolationist bent of Ron Paul's campaign, remains bullish about keeping America aggressively involved in world affairs.
But for a candidate diligently preparing his general election argument on every other policy, this is an odd political play. On the surface, at least, President Obama's decision to withdraw troops from the combat zones in the Middle East is broadly popular. A Gallup poll taken last summer, when the president had announced an initial proposal to remove U.S. forces, reported 72 percent of adults in the country supported Obama -- including 50 percent of Republicans.
The findings are in line with polls of troop withdrawal in Iraq -- 75 percent supported the withdrawal, according to a November survey from the Pew Research Center.
Romney, then, is tethering himself to an unpopular agenda, one that has proven volatile with voters in recent elections. Why?
According to political consultants on both sides the aisle, Romney's positioning on Iraq and Afghanistan might be a necessary unpopular position to make a larger critique of the Obama administration's handling of foreign policy. If Romney -- or whoever emerges as the eventual GOP nominee -- wants to make the case Obama has been a weak, incompetent handler of the country's foreign affairs (itself part of a larger argument that Obama is in over his head as president), he can't cede ground on the country's two wars.
In other words, if he wants to criticize him on Israel or Iran, he needs to attack him on Iraq and Afghanistan, too.
"I really think he's setting up in a general election that even though Obama may have made the final call to take out Bin Laden, his foreign policy is another disaster that's undermining national security," said Greg Mueller, a Republican strategist. "I think there's a narrative that can be built pretty strongly there."
Foreign policy is obviously a secondary issue in the 2012 race amid the electorate's almost singular focus on the economy. But there are signs Obama's campaign will use his record there -- ending or winding down two wars, toppling Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya, and killing Osama Bin Laden -- to show he's a strong leader during indisputably difficult times. For Republicans, countering that argument could be more about minimizing damage among voters than winning the argument outright.
Democrats are confident Obama's international accomplishments remain a trump card, especially if the Republican nominee sticks to his guns on Afghanistan and Iraq.
"If you want to make the case that Obama has been incompetent as a commander-in-chief, if one wants to make that case, this probably isn't best way to make it," said Guy Molyneux, a Democratic consultant. "I think it's a hard case to make."
Join the Discussion
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus