The Third Debate: America's Phallic Foreign Policy

     I very much doubt that people expected much of the final presidential debate. To get this out of the way, I thought it revealed nothing new in terms of foreign policy and indeed, there was little to no difference between the two candidates. According to polls, only 2% of Americans consider foreign policy a priority, so it is only natural that the entire debate was going to be re-shifted to the economy. In addition, the true purpose of the debate is not to compare and contrast foreign policy philosophies and strategies, indeed they are quasi-identical, but rather to see who is more suited to be commander-in-chief. To put it in more pedestrian terms, the rivalry was to be decided based on the measurement of the male sex organ. 

But I believe that it would still be interesting to analyze what they talked about, but perhaps more importantly, what they didn’t. I’ll be looking at the segments dealing with Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Iran then look at what was said with regards to China, before concluding by looking at both candidates’ conception of American foreign policy.

Libya:

What they said: Romney warns of the rise of Jihadist Islamism in Libya following the revolution, but is in agreement with Obama’s military intervention to topple Gadhafi. Obama did not say much other than use Libya as an example for his success as president. 

What they didn’t say: That the American strategy of throwing arms everywhere has had severe negative consequences. The Libyan government is still struggling to disarm militant groups of more Islamist leanings, a number of whom are staying in Jordan to get access to Syria which is another problem. They also did not mention that Gadhafi was murdered when defenseless instead of being subjected to due process and the rule of law. 

Naturally Obama was not going to mention any of this as they might be seen as a failure on his part. What is interesting is that Romney made no mention of them either. But this is explained by the fact that both candidates were arguing over who is the best G.I. Joe. Mentioning fair treatment and observing rules even when dealing with murdering dictators, isn’t maverick and tough, but rather weak and sentimental. Yes ladies and gentlemen, foreign policy has been “Hollywood-ized.”

Egypt:

What they said: Obama’s emphasis on the rejection of nation-building logically leads him to say that Egypt’s democratically elected government should now take responsibility. But he did say that the USA will pressure Egypt to respect women’s rights, minorities and of course not do anything Israel would be displeased with. Romney did criticize post-Mubarak Egypt with the surge of Islamism, but was as quick as Obama to re-shift to the economy. 

What they didn’t say: It is almost comical if it wasn’t disturbing, that neither of them even mentioned the economic and political control / influence the Egyptian military still exercises in the country. They didn’t mention Saudi funding, if not to the Muslim Brotherhood, then to the Salafist Hisb al-Noor. Naturally, because the military is still their ally and Saudi Arabia is also laughably considered a reliable ally if not tool.

Syria: 

What they said: Obama gave himself a pat on the back for organizing an international community which shouts the talk, in addition to diplomatic isolation and humanitarian aid, pointing to Libya as the example that inspired him even though anyone with a brain cell knows it’s an extremely different case. But he emphasized that Syria is going to have to decide its own fate…with consultation with Israel.  Romney sees an opportunity in Syria to isolate Iran, and heavily emphasized the importance of arms (military contractors are going to make a killing). The US should also bypass the UN, as if it doesn't do so already. But both ultimately agree that military intervention is not plausible and that the US should organize the moderates in the Syrian opposition. 

What they didn’t say: They made no mention that the armed side of the opposition at least, is now dominated by radical Islamists funded by their friend Saudi Arabia. Indeed, even the SNC is being primarily funded by Saudi Arabia in what they call “salaries.” The country least likely in the world to promote a moderate and liberal opposition truly in line with American principles and values that both candidates clamored about, is the country named after a family. Moreover, they made no mention of Russia and its support of Assad. This leads me to believe that the USA realizes that there is nothing it can do now save waiting and seeing what happens. Considering a number of polls showing that a majority of Americans are against military and financial support to Syria, it is only natural that the issue would take a backseat.

Iran:

What they said: Both agreed that Iran is the USA’s greatest threat in the world and that it being armed with nuclear weapons is unacceptable. Of course the word “Israel” was perhaps mentioned even more so than “Iran.” And that’s pretty much it. Obama summarized it pretty well when he said that Romney is saying the exact same thing as he is, only louder. The only thing Romney mentioned is Obama’s silence with regards to the “green revolution.” A worthy effort, but I honestly doubt most Americans even remember what that is, if they even knew in the first place. 

What they didn’t say: That the number one sponsor of terrorism including al-Qaeda is Saudi Arabia and not Iran, which is a big trend in this debate. No one ever mentions Saudi Arabia. You’d think it’s the country that would attract the most attention, but maybe extravagant lack of subtlety becomes a subtlety of its own? 

The moderator touched on something that was not as well explored as it should have - the possibility of Israel bypassing the US and attacking Iran, dragging the US into a conflict without its green light. Both candidates seem confident that such a thing will not happen, and yet Obama few months ago said that he can’t stand dealing with Netanyahu after Sarkozy accused him of being a liar.  No one mentioned the explicit threats and even promises the Israeli government uttered on attacking Iran. I don’t know how likely it is for Israel to bypass the US, though in 1967, it did something almost similar. It did not get a green light from the US to attack neighboring countries. That said it did receive a “yellow light” implying that such violence while not recommended is still possible to carry out and keep American support. It’s definitely within the realm of possibility and it should have been discussed more seriously.

China:

What they said: Both, again, agree. China is a potential partner if it learns to follow the rules and stop cheating.  Then the topic was re-shifted to the economy and outsourcing.

What they didn’t say: Both didn’t mention human rights abuses in China and that political liberalization does not seem to be taking place. But that is not surprising, only inconsistent with their talk with regards to the MENA region (which itself is inconsistent as well). 

What I found more interesting is that neither mentioned, at least explicitly, the Chinese naval build up (their first aircraft carrier just entered service. An aircraft carrier is an offensive weapon by its very nature), and the clashes that occurred a short while ago surrounding Chinese maritime claims (http://thelastcolumnist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/BBC-SpratlyTerritorial-claims.jpg). I highly doubt both are unaware of this fact or would let this go unanswered, and I believe neither mentioned it to avoid exposing how their quaint idea of the US focusing on the economy primarily in the lieu of playing Risk is a big lie.  

Role in the World and the Military: 

What they said: Both agree that the US should be a world leader. Obama called the US the “indispensable” nation of the world, which I honestly do not even know what that means. The rest of the world is disposable? Both agreed that the USA should be strong and should promote its values. Romney, who is often accused of being a warmonger, talked about peace in ways that would make Miss World contestants giggle. And Obama talked about promoting values like women’s rights and protection of minorities, albeit selectively depending on the country in question. Romney talked about needing a comprehensive plan to defeat terrorism that goes beyond killing, which is true, but failed to provide any specifics. As for the military, despite the comical back and forth over the navy, both agree that drones are a good idea.The seemingly big difference is that Romney would have a bigger military budget, though Obama praised himself for increasing the military budget as well during his administration.

What they didn’t say: In their talks of peace, no one mentioned the Palestinian-Israeli conflict at all, clearly showing where their priories lie.  

With regards to drone technology, no one put in question its effectiveness and the negative consequences of its usage. Nor did anyone point out the shady nature of this new drone war. What is not being brought up, is that compared to the American military which is relatively accountable and subject to laws (the flaws notwithstanding), drones are completely unaccountable. They do not operate within the American army, but rather under the CIA and the President directly. This results in a big problem with regards to transparency and accountability. Furthermore we see that drones are not less likely to cause the death of innocents (what we call “collateral damage”), which is aggravating the situation in Yemen and especially Pakistan. What is being implicitly said is that any way to reduce casualties when it comes to American soldiers (for political purposes mind you), as well as giving the US more leeway to be offensive, is a good thing irrespective of the damage and deaths that are being caused.  Both talked about allowing others to do their own nation-building, but how can that happen when the US violates their sovereignty and bombs them almost daily? Both talk about having comprehensive plans to defeat terrorism, but with the unquestioned support they both give to the number one financier of terrorism, the KSA, and their aggressive hunt for Al-Qaeda members, disregarding political and human costs, I wonder how seriously we can take such claims.

To conclude, what was said was mostly insubstantial and a waste of time, as was expected. What was not said however speaks volumes of America’s foreign policy philosophy, irrespective of candidate. It is quite similar to the Bush administration, the disagreement being primarily on its execution, and words like "irresponsible", "overly-aggressive", and "unsustainable" come to mind when trying to describe it. One wonders if this philosophy is conducive to their self-proclaimed position of “world leader.”