Romney calls for bigger navy, stronger army

opinions

October 24, 2012 - 12:00 AM

Monday night’s debate should have given most Americans comfort. It revealed that Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are on the same page on foreign policy.
Perhaps there was a little edge to the words, but the president made the point when he looked straight at Romney and said, “you will say the same things that we do, only you will say them louder.”
Both said they would not stay in Afghanistan past 2014; both said they would not use the U.S. military in Syria; both said Israel is America’s most important ally in the Middle East; both are committed to preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons; both support the use of drones to go after terrorists, and both consider Pakistan an important player in the struggle against Muslim extremists that we must keep as an ally.
The biggest difference between the two is over the amount they would spend on the military. Romney has pledged to increase the size of the U.S. Navy and to beef up the Army as well. He would increase military spending by about $2 trillion over the next 10 years. President Obama would use the money no longer needed to keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and spend it on U.S. infrastructure.
Romney defended his pledge to spend much more on the military, balance the budget and pay down the national debt while slashing income taxes 20 percent across the board by saying that spending would be offset by unspecified budget reductions.
The president responded by saying that the math doesn’t work.
It may also be that the American people are not ready to send still more money to the Pentagon while spending on Medicare, Social Security, highways, renewable energy, the scientific research which generates the high tech jobs fundamental to the nation’s wealth, and a long, long list of other domestic needs is reduced.

AN OBSERVER from some forgotten Pacific island would call Monday night’s hour-and-a-half quarrel a tie. Both kept their tempers. Romney demonstrated he had done his homework on international affairs. The president made it clear that much of his time has been devoted to leading the most powerful nation on earth and keeping our alliances with other free nations strong.
That same observer would also notice the two men have different goals for the next four years.
Mitt Romney believes the Obama administration has been a weak leader on the world stage. If elected, he promises to be more assertive. To demand more from America’s allies and be tougher on America’s enemies. As president Romney would be determined to keep the U. S. of A. number one in the world, and he is willing to ratchet up U.S. military spending still higher to make his point.
President Obama’s second term, if he wins it on Nov. 6, would be devoted to America’s own back yard. He repeatedly says that “America’s nation-building should start right here at home.” He recognizes that the U.S. must continue to be a world leader and respond when crises occur.  He understands that our interests are worldwide and must be defended. He is devoted to helping democracies grow and flourish around the world. But he also is keenly aware that our nation has domestic issues that must be addressed and deserve priority.
The American people will decide between these national agendas when they cast their ballots 13 days from now.
 

— Emerson Lynn, jr.

Related
October 4, 2012
September 18, 2012
April 5, 2012
March 27, 2012