[D66] In bellicose speech, Romney outlines bipartisan drive to war

[Antid Oto]

In bellicose speech, Romney outlines bipartisan drive to war
By Joseph Kishore
9 October 2012

In a bellicose foreign policy speech Monday, Republican Party 
presidential candidate Mitt Romney threatened war with Iran, expanded 
military intervention in Syria, an unending occupation of Afghanistan, 
and the reintroduction of US troops into Iraq.

While framed as a criticism of the policy of the Obama administration, 
the main contours of Romney’s speech were in line with the agenda 
proposed by the current president. Romney’s remarks highlighted the 
bipartisan conspiracy against the American people, as both candidates 
plan an aggressive expansion of US militarism abroad, behind the backs 
of the public.

Romney delivered his speech at the Virginia Military Institute, 
continuing a tradition, shared by the current president, in which 
foreign policy speeches are delivered before a military audience. The 
military is treated as—and indeed is in fact—an independent and 
overriding power in the American political establishment.

After his speech, Romney held a closed-door meeting with retired 
generals, in which the war plans of a potential Romney administration 
were no doubt discussed with even greater candor.

Romney declared that the US needed to “change course in the Middle East” 
and said that “our words” must be “backed up by deeds.”

On Iran, Romney said that the country “has never been closer to a 
nuclear weapons capability…. I will put the leaders of Iran on notice 
that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from 
acquiring nuclear weapons capability,” he said. “I will not hesitate to 
impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we 
currently have.”

Romney’s position closely paralleled remarks made by Obama before the 
United Nations last month, when the president insisted that “the United 
States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear 
weapon.” Without presenting any evidence that Iran is actually pursuing 
a nuclear weapon, the US and its allies have imposed devastating 
economic sanctions on the country, as part of their preparations for 
war. (See: Obama uses UN speech to threaten war against Iran)

There are certain tactical differences within the American ruling class, 
and between the US and the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, 
over the timing of any US strikes on Iran. Romney sought to exploit 
these differences to stake out a position slightly to the right of 
Obama, stating that “the world must never see any daylight between” the 
US and Israel.

However, in his own speech before the UN last month, Netanyahu suggested 
that his differences with the Obama administration had been at least 
temporarily resolved. The Israeli prime minister appeared to accept 
postponing military action until the spring or summer of next year, 
while also acceding to Obama’s call for tighter economic sanctions.

On Syria, Romney said he favored giving more supplies and heavy weapons 
to the Syrian opposition. “I will work with our partners to identify and 
organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure 
they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and 
fighter jets.”

The CIA under the Obama administration is currently directing arms to 
the anti-Assad forces in Syria, coordinating this with Saudi Arabia and 
other Persian Gulf states. The administration has as yet refrained from 
sending certain weapons, in part over concern about the implications of 
the fact that in its campaign for regime change in Syria, the US is 
relying on Islamic fundamentalist elements. Any weapons could end up 
directed back at the US, as in the attack in Libya last month that 
killed the US ambassador.

The recent clashes between Syria and NATO member Turkey underscore that 
the proxy civil war stoked by the Obama administration could easily and 
rapidly explode into a war throughout the Middle East, bringing in the 
all the major powers, including the United States, Russia and China.

In his speech, Romney added barbs directed at both these 
countries—saying that “Putin’s Russia casts a long shadow over young 
democracies” in Europe and that “China’s recent assertiveness is sending 
chills through the region.”

Romney added that he would “roll back President Obama’s deep and 
arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our 
military,” a reference to the automatic military cuts included in an 
agreement between the Democrats and Republicans in 2011. Both parties 
are determined to prevent these cuts by slashing hundreds of billions 
more in social programs—to be implemented after the November elections.

On Afghanistan, Romney followed Obama in calling for a “transition to 
Afghan security forces by the end of 2014.” At the same time, he made 
clear, as current US generals have, that the US occupation would 
continue indefinitely if “conditions on the ground” and “the best advice 
of our military commanders” deems this necessary.

As for Iraq, Romney criticized Obama for carrying out an “abrupt troop 
withdrawal,” suggesting that the departure of US troops may be reversed. 
“The president tried—and failed—to secure a responsible and gradual 
drawdown that would have better secured our gains,” he said.

The general response of left-liberal circles to Romney’s remarks was to 
proclaim its “centrist” character, in which Romney supposedly has 
abandoned his more bellicose positions. The Nation’s Ben Adler, for 
example, headlines his comment posted Monday, “Romney’s Flip-Flop to 
Center Continues With Foreign Policy.”

In fact, if The Nation feels that the political distance separating it 
from Romney is shrinking, it is not because Romney’s calls for massive 
military spending and war are left-wing. It is because The Nation and 
the social layer for which it speaks are moving very quickly to the 
right and have embraced the imperialist policies proposed by both major 
parties.

The Obama administration has become the vehicle for the supposedly 
“left” layers of the upper middle class to fall entirely behind the 
basic strategy of American imperialism, particularly through support for 
the war in Libya and the US-backed civil war in Syria.

Indeed, it is notable that one of the main criticisms Romney sought to 
level at the Obama administration—that it is not supplying sufficiently 
advanced weaponry to the anti-Assad forces in Syria—is entirely in line 
with similar criticisms advanced by pseudo-left groups like the 
International Socialist Organization.

In military policy, as in domestic policy, there is a vast and 
unbridgeable gulf between this entire political establishment and the 
sentiments of the majority of the American population.

Romney is running on a platform of “more war”—bucking a tradition in 
which even the most reactionary politicians seek to make an appeal to 
the overriding anti-war sentiment of the American people. Nixon, for 
example, famously campaigned in 1968 on the basis of a “secret plan” to 
end the war in Vietnam, and then expanded the war enormously after 
taking office.

The Obama administration cannot mobilize popular opposition to war 
against Romney, however, because its policies are barely distinguishable 
from those proposed by the Republican candidate.

Regardless of who is elected in November, Romney or Obama, the American 
ruling class is set on a course that is leading to new wars in the 
Middle East—a policy of criminal aggression that is leading the world 
into a new world war, with incalculable consequences.

http://wsws.org/articles/2012/oct2012/romn-o09.shtml