Foreign Policy Debate: Obama v. Romney

Today we are two weeks away from one of the most dramatic presidential elections of the past 20 years. Last night, the two presidential hopefuls met for the last time to discuss foreign policy. As a global politics major and a participant in a foreign policy research study, this was the debate that I was most excited for. However, to tell you the truth, they both greatly disappointed me. It took the moderator over an hour to bring up China, neither candidate addressed Libya or the crisis in the EU, and with every question they found new and creative ways to avoid the topic and get back to domestic policy and the economy. Don’t get me wrong, I think that the economy is the biggest issue facing America today and the election will be determined based on economic policy. But, this is the foreign policy debate! I wanted to hear about foreign policy. However, I digress.

            Each candidate had a specific role to play during the debate. As the incumbent, Obama’s job was to reaffirm his position as Commander and Chief. The president represents the United States in many ways, but today, arguably his most important role is as the head of our military.  For over 10 years, we have been in an ongoing conflict in the Middle East and portraying his intentions to not only finish this conflict, but to finish it correctly was a major concern of mine. However, I believe that Obama carried himself very well in regards to that topic. In 2008, he was elected on the premise that he would end the war. While he has technically ended the conflict in Iraq, America still has troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama did a great job last night of expressing his desire to remove the troops but also to ensure the American people that further terrorist attacks will not be tolerated and that he will protect us. Overall, he portrayed a good combination of both hawk and dove.

            Governor Romney had a very different job do to during the debate. To counter Obama, he needed to prove to American voters that he is prepared to be an even better Commander and Chief than Obama. At the same time, he needed to persuade marginal voters that he is not as much of a “hawk” as the rest of his party is portrayed to be. Foreign policy is a hard topic to use to distinguish one candidate from another. The world always looks different from the oval office so candidates are often hesitant to make large promises or radical demands of foreign nations during campaigns; due to the possibility that their perceptions may change once in office. Compared to Obama, I don’t think that Romney did as well persuading the audience that he can do a better job. For his party, he needed to play the hawk but because of the nature of this election, he held back and at times seemed almost wishy-washy. His constant smirking did not help much either.

            As with the past two debates, factual evidence to appeal to logos were crucial for either side, but both candidates often misquoted each other. One thing that I knew Romney was going to touch on was Obama’s so called “Apology Tour” throughout the Middle East at the beginning of his first term. As a voter who tends to lean to the right, I too had an issue with this tour. However, it appears that Romney was wrong in calling it such. According to the Washington Post fact checkers, Obama never apologized in any of his appearances in the Middle East. This “fact” stems from a speech in France where Obama claimed that America has at time shown arrogance and been dismissive towards Europe. Fact: Europe is not the Middle East, and while I do not agree with what he said, his speech was made to a completely different audience than those he spoke two in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. During this debate, Obama was not as factually accurate either. His campaign loves to highlight the death of Osama Bin Laden as a political victory. During the debate Obama claimed that Romney said that he would not have moved heaven and earth to get just one man, as Obama did. According to the Washington Post, Obama is leaving disregarding the rest of Romney’s speech on the topic made in 2007. In his speech, Romney said, “We’ll move everything to get him. But I don’t want to buy into the Democratic pitch that it is all about one person — Osama bin Laden — because after we get him, there’s going to be another and another. This is about Shia and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate.” Uncovering Romney’s true words completely distorts Obama’s claim.  

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-third-presidential-debate/2012/10/23/91dbdc4a-1c61-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_blog.html)