A sad commentary, even if my man won

It’s hard to write more than 140-character tweets about last night’s “foreign policy” debate.  Governor Romney lined up behind President Obama on almost all current policy issues.  He even liked foreign assistance, gender equality, democracy promotion and diplomatic efforts to end Iran’s progress toward nuclear [weapons?] capability.  Not to mention their agreement on drones, sanctions, withdrawal from Afghanistan and support for Israel.  And they agreed that America’s strength abroad depends on the health of its economy and educational system at home.  We’ve got a bipartisan foreign policy, whether we like it or not.

The real problem is that the Ryan budget, which Romney supports, is not aligned with what the Governor advocated.  This is particularly clear on foreign aid, which the Ryan budget guts.  I realize this is a wonkish concern, but it is also a real one.  Priorities not reflected in budget proposals are not real priorities.  We can be sure that a Romney presidency would not do what Romney says, because he would not fund it.  He would prefer a massive military buildup, on top of the massive military buildup of the past ten years.

The disagreements last night were almost entirely about past events.  Romney wanted to leave many more troops in Iraq than Obama and blames the president for the failure to reach a status of forces agreement.  The  fact that the Iraqis were not willing to bend on legal jurisdiction over the Americans remaining went unmentioned.  By the way:  the issue is not “immunity,” as most of the press would have it.  American troops remain liable in U.S. courts for criminal acts committed abroad, even if the “receiving country” agrees to waive its jurisdiction.  The administration resisted tightening Iran sanctions, until of course it no longer resisted because it thought the timing right.

If you want to check the facts, the Washington Post offers a good rundown.  I don’t think there was much advantage or disadvantage in the errors, though it is a bit troubling that Romney does not know that Syria does not border Iran, which has ample routes “to the sea.”  I wish Obama had not exaggerated the increase in exports to China.  The numbers are pretty good without embellishment.

I agree with Peter Beinart:  George W. Bush won this debate.  Both Obama and Romney defined American foreign policy purely in military terms.  This is a serious misreading of the challenges we face as well as the instruments needed to meet them.  While pointing repeatedly to problems like Mali’s Islamist insurgency, Iran’s nuclear program, Pakistan’s failing state and Egypt’s economic deterioration, neither talked about the civilian instruments required to resolve them. Diplomacy, foreign aid, international law enforcement, multilateral financial and other institutions simply don’t register on the presidential level, even with my preferred candidate.  That itself is a sad commentary on what we call foreign policy, bipartisan or not.

PS:  Here is a Voice of America piece I participated in before the debate:

PPS:  And here is the piece KSA2 (an English-language Saudi station) did the night of the election: