Rational Security

Fight Night

How Barack Obama and Mitt Romney measure up on the seven foreign policy issues that really matter.

John Moore/Getty Images
John Moore/Getty Images

National security and foreign policy finally come front-and-center Monday night. So it is high time to assess the candidates’ relative strengths and weaknesses in these areas. Some small hints about where they stand were dropped in the Ryan-Biden undercard matchup — and Libya was discussed, though clumsily, in Obama-Romney II — but the real action is only now heating up.

Here are the seven most salient issues — in rough order of public interest — and how the candidates match up:

Defense spending

Obama: Features a solid left jab, aiming at incremental budget cuts. He also enjoys better footwork, intended to help make the military nimbler and more networked.

Romney: Has a strong "no cut" uppercut, and promises to sustain, even increase, the Pentagon budget. "I want America to be so strong no one will ever think of attacking us."

Analysis: Substantial advantage to Obama. Our current economic straits make reductions in defense spending mandatory. And a shift from the Powell Doctrine of "overwhelming force" to a more supple approach is long overdue.

Afghanistan

Obama: Emphasizes a massive training regimen for Afghans who have little faith in their weak, corrupt central government.

Romney: Agrees with much of Obama’s Afghan policy, but thinks that Obama’s declaration of no mas in 2014 allows the Taliban to rope-a-dope us until we leave.

Analysis: Slight edge to Romney for realizing that we shouldn’t telegraph our final punches. But neither candidate reflects an awareness of the futility of centralized nation-building in Afghanistan, a country where it’s the "edges" that truly matter.

Syria

Obama: Has deftly avoided precipitate intervention in the fight, while at the same time making clear that Assad regime atrocities or use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.

Romney: A bit too eager to mix it up by arming the insurgents. Wants to select the "right ones" to support, but there may be no Mr. Right in this conflict.

Analysis: Slight advantage to Obama. His cautious approach is laudable, but it is ever more difficult to watch the suffering of innocent Syrians.

Iran

Obama: Trying to prevent nuclear proliferation by employing a variety of tactics against Tehran. Relying on economic sanctions, (alleged) covert cyber attack, last-resort threats of the use of force — and some diplomacy as well.

Romney: Seeks the same outcome as Obama, would employ much the same approach, but more likely to emphasize force, perhaps even allow Israel in as a "ringer."

Analysis: Edge to Obama, as he is more willing to keep trying for a diplomatic solution. Romney’s posture is a bit too combative.

Al Qaeda

Obama: KO’d bin Laden with commandos, and has great "reach" with drone strikes, from Waziristan to Yemen, and beyond.

Romney: Effective counter-punching with observations that al Qaeda remains on its feet and fighting on several fronts.

Analysis: Even.

Libya

Obama: Helped promote rebel takedown of Qaddafi with an innovative, cost-effective approach to helping others be the principal agents of their own liberation. But after-the-bout chaos, including the terrorist attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, is a serious blot on the record.

Romney: Missed with a roundhouse punch at consular security policy and White House confusion in Obama-Romney II, but might still connect by depicting the Benghazi debacle as a symptom of a larger American policy failure to follow through post-Qaddafi.

Analysis: Very slight edge to Romney, but exploitable into something bigger if he can jab more effectively at the administration’s response to the 9/11/12 attack, and then call into question American inaction in the aftermath of regime change in Libya.

Iraq

Obama: Ducked the possibility of a return bout with residual insurgent forces by removing all U.S. forces, leaving behind slow-simmering societal unrest that is bound to boil over.

Romney: Ever combative, wanted to keep punching, even with reduced U.S. presence.

Analysis: Significant advantage to Romney. There are both practical and ethical reasons for keeping Iraq from going up in flames again. Al Qaeda fighters have returned, make mischief there, and also filter into Syria from Iraq. As to the failure to negotiate an acceptable status-of-forces agreement that would have kept some American troops in country, this too hurts President Obama.

These are not the only foreign policy matters, but they matter most. North Korea is, for now, quiescent, and Pakistan remains a "frenemy." And don’t expect much new ground to be broken on foreign trade, as each of the candidates wants it to be "free and fair," even though insisting on both makes neither possible. Also, President Obama may try to land a punch about Romney’s description of Russia as our "No. 1 geopolitical foe." This would be a mistake, as Romney can point to Russia’s great economic and military resources, and its steadily growing opposition to a range of American policies. Further, Romney could counterpunch by pointing out that Obama’s "pivot to the Pacific" will neglect the current arc of conflict in the Middle East and alienate China, a major trading partner.

To summarize the strategic "tale of the tape," each candidate holds the edge in different issue areas, and their divergent views, while often subtle, still reflect considerable sharpness. Governor Romney is likely to do much better than expected of someone with so little foreign policy experience. Obama-Romney III has the potential to be a crackling debate from the outset to the finish.

The betting line: Even.

National security and foreign policy finally come front-and-center Monday night. So it is high time to assess the candidates’ relative strengths and weaknesses in these areas. Some small hints about where they stand were dropped in the Ryan-Biden undercard matchup — and Libya was discussed, though clumsily, in Obama-Romney II — but the real action is only now heating up.

Here are the seven most salient issues — in rough order of public interest — and how the candidates match up:

Defense spending

Obama: Features a solid left jab, aiming at incremental budget cuts. He also enjoys better footwork, intended to help make the military nimbler and more networked.

Romney: Has a strong "no cut" uppercut, and promises to sustain, even increase, the Pentagon budget. "I want America to be so strong no one will ever think of attacking us."

Analysis: Substantial advantage to Obama. Our current economic straits make reductions in defense spending mandatory. And a shift from the Powell Doctrine of "overwhelming force" to a more supple approach is long overdue.

Afghanistan

Obama: Emphasizes a massive training regimen for Afghans who have little faith in their weak, corrupt central government.

Romney: Agrees with much of Obama’s Afghan policy, but thinks that Obama’s declaration of no mas in 2014 allows the Taliban to rope-a-dope us until we leave.

Analysis: Slight edge to Romney for realizing that we shouldn’t telegraph our final punches. But neither candidate reflects an awareness of the futility of centralized nation-building in Afghanistan, a country where it’s the "edges" that truly matter.

Syria

Obama: Has deftly avoided precipitate intervention in the fight, while at the same time making clear that Assad regime atrocities or use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.

Romney: A bit too eager to mix it up by arming the insurgents. Wants to select the "right ones" to support, but there may be no Mr. Right in this conflict.

Analysis: Slight advantage to Obama. His cautious approach is laudable, but it is ever more difficult to watch the suffering of innocent Syrians.

Iran

Obama: Trying to prevent nuclear proliferation by employing a variety of tactics against Tehran. Relying on economic sanctions, (alleged) covert cyber attack, last-resort threats of the use of force — and some diplomacy as well.

Romney: Seeks the same outcome as Obama, would employ much the same approach, but more likely to emphasize force, perhaps even allow Israel in as a "ringer."

Analysis: Edge to Obama, as he is more willing to keep trying for a diplomatic solution. Romney’s posture is a bit too combative.

Al Qaeda

Obama: KO’d bin Laden with commandos, and has great "reach" with drone strikes, from Waziristan to Yemen, and beyond.

Romney: Effective counter-punching with observations that al Qaeda remains on its feet and fighting on several fronts.

Analysis: Even.

Libya

Obama: Helped promote rebel takedown of Qaddafi with an innovative, cost-effective approach to helping others be the principal agents of their own liberation. But after-the-bout chaos, including the terrorist attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, is a serious blot on the record.

Romney: Missed with a roundhouse punch at consular security policy and White House confusion in Obama-Romney II, but might still connect by depicting the Benghazi debacle as a symptom of a larger American policy failure to follow through post-Qaddafi.

Analysis: Very slight edge to Romney, but exploitable into something bigger if he can jab more effectively at the administration’s response to the 9/11/12 attack, and then call into question American inaction in the aftermath of regime change in Libya.

Iraq

Obama: Ducked the possibility of a return bout with residual insurgent forces by removing all U.S. forces, leaving behind slow-simmering societal unrest that is bound to boil over.

Romney: Ever combative, wanted to keep punching, even with reduced U.S. presence.

Analysis: Significant advantage to Romney. There are both practical and ethical reasons for keeping Iraq from going up in flames again. Al Qaeda fighters have returned, make mischief there, and also filter into Syria from Iraq. As to the failure to negotiate an acceptable status-of-forces agreement that would have kept some American troops in country, this too hurts President Obama.

These are not the only foreign policy matters, but they matter most. North Korea is, for now, quiescent, and Pakistan remains a "frenemy." And don’t expect much new ground to be broken on foreign trade, as each of the candidates wants it to be "free and fair," even though insisting on both makes neither possible. Also, President Obama may try to land a punch about Romney’s description of Russia as our "No. 1 geopolitical foe." This would be a mistake, as Romney can point to Russia’s great economic and military resources, and its steadily growing opposition to a range of American policies. Further, Romney could counterpunch by pointing out that Obama’s "pivot to the Pacific" will neglect the current arc of conflict in the Middle East and alienate China, a major trading partner.

To summarize the strategic "tale of the tape," each candidate holds the edge in different issue areas, and their divergent views, while often subtle, still reflect considerable sharpness. Governor Romney is likely to do much better than expected of someone with so little foreign policy experience. Obama-Romney III has the potential to be a crackling debate from the outset to the finish.

The betting line: Even.

John Arquilla earned his degrees in international relations from Rosary College (BA 1975) and Stanford University (MA 1989, PhD 1991). He has been teaching in the special operations program at the United States Naval Postgraduate School since 1993. He also serves as chairman of the Defense Analysis department.

Dr. Arquilla’s teaching interests revolve around the history of irregular warfare, terrorism, and the implications of the information age for society and security.

His books include: Dubious Battles: Aggression, Defeat and the International System (1992); From Troy to Entebbe: Special Operations in Ancient & Modern Times (1996), which was a featured alternate of the Military Book Club; In Athena’s Camp (1997); Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime and Militancy (2001), named a notable book of the year by the American Library Association; The Reagan Imprint: Ideas in American Foreign Policy from the Collapse of Communism to the War on Terror (2006); Worst Enemy: The Reluctant Transformation of the American Military (2008), which is about defense reform; Insurgents, Raiders, and Bandits: How Masters of Irregular Warfare Have Shaped Our World (2011); and Afghan Endgames: Strategy and Policy Choices for America’s Longest War (2012).

Dr. Arquilla is also the author of more than one hundred articles dealing with a wide range of topics in military and security affairs. His work has appeared in the leading academic journals and in general publications like The New York Times, Forbes, Foreign Policy Magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, Wired and The New Republic. He is best known for his concept of “netwar” (i.e., the distinct manner in which those organized into networks fight). His vision of “swarm tactics” was selected by The New York Times as one of the “big ideas” of 2001; and in recent years Foreign Policy Magazine has listed him among the world’s “top 100 thinkers.”

In terms of policy experience, Dr. Arquilla worked as a consultant to General Norman Schwarzkopf during Operation Desert Storm, as part of a group of RAND analysts assigned to him. During the Kosovo War, he assisted deputy secretary of defense John Hamre on a range of issues in international information strategy. Since the onset of the war on terror, Dr. Arquilla has focused on assisting special operations forces and other units on practical “field problems.” Most recently, he worked for the White House as a member of a small, nonpartisan team of outsiders asked to articulate new directions for American defense policy.

More from Foreign Policy

The Taliban delegation leaves the hotel after meeting with representatives of Russia, China, the United States, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Qatar in Moscow on March 19.

China and the Taliban Begin Their Romance

Beijing has its eyes set on using Afghanistan as a strategic corridor once U.S. troops are out of the way.

An Afghan security member pours gasoline over a pile of seized drugs and alcoholic drinks

The Taliban Are Breaking Bad

Meth is even more profitable than heroin—and is turbocharging the insurgency.

Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya addresses the U.N. Security Council from her office in Vilnius, Lithuania, on Sept. 4, 2020.

Belarus’s Unlikely New Leader

Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya didn’t set out to challenge a brutal dictatorship.

Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid

What the Taliban Takeover Means for India

Kabul’s swift collapse leaves New Delhi with significant security concerns.