With the final presidential debate now in the books, I see one thing above all else with perfect clarity: both candidates have a natural propensity to dance around any given question. Although sometimes their ability to do so mesmerizes, causing the audience to forget the issue at hand, their skills in that realm have increasingly diminished. This became evident at myriad instances throughout the month of October, but it became exceedingly blatant during Monday’s debate. Different rhetoric was used on either side to say the same things over and over again.
This became particularly evident during the last question of the debate when the candidates were asked what they perceive to be our premier national security threat. President Barack Obama then filibustered about China for roughly eight minutes. Gov. Mitt Romney then gave the Iranian nuclear threat a three second shout out before arguing with Obama over China.
Foreign policy and national security are blatantly arenas where much time needs to be devoted. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and the plethora of other terrorist organizations gaining traction in the Middle East are committed to the destruction of Israel, which they consider the world’s “Little Satan,” and the United States, which they consider the “Big Satan.”
The Iranian regime is a chief sponsor of both Hezbollah and Hamas. Regarding the Iranian threat, my stance is that both candidates danced, or rather flailed, around points of contention because there are in fact no points of contention between them. Obama spoke the truth when he reiterated that he has led the most crippling sanctions in history against Ahmadinejad’s Iran. And the Iranian economy is now on the brink of total catastrophe. Whether or not this impels Iran to halt its proliferation of nuclear enrichment is yet to be seen.
The issue of China has no place in a national security debate. However, Iran, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda certainly do. I am disappointed in the president for not delineating that more clearly. Regardless, in terms of national security, Obama has done a fine job over the last four years.
Romney’s ubiquitous jabs that Iran is four years closer to nuclear weapons as a result of the Obama administration amount to zilch. Iran’s program became transparent to the international community in 2002. Former President George W. Bush had six years to deal with the threat and did not do much. I don’t think Romney would do a worse job with the Iranian regime than Obama has done. I think they would be relatively similar.
Whereas I condemn Obama’s physical absence from Israel during his term, I condone his visits to other Muslim nations. Romney spoke at length on strengthening allies in the Arab world, yet he reprimanded Obama for attempting to do just that. It is evident that those nations would want nothing to do with Romney. And as bleak as any two-state solution appears at the moment, there is literally zero chance that it could come to fruition under a Romney administration.
Friends are valuable assets. Friendships require time, energy, devotion and humility. I think that Obama has done a pretty good job at building and kindling friendships over the past few years. With one fell swoop, Romney not only alienated and derided the whole of Arab culture, but he also perplexingly scoffed at the United Kingdom for their preparedness at the Olympic Games.
In terms of national security, I think rhetoric is the only major difference between the two candidates. But if we are at all concerned whether or not we are loners in the world, Obama is most definitely the choice for the Oval Office.
Please send all feedback and letters to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
