Unlike the first debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney, last night’s vice presidential debate had plenty of talk about foreign policy (thank you, Martha Raddatz!). As I had hoped, both Israel and Turkey got mentioned during the mix of topics, and there are some conclusions that can be drawn from what both Joe Biden and Paul Ryan had to say.
On Israel, unsurprisingly both candidates were climbing over each other to note their support. Israel is popular with the American public, so this was a smart move for both sides. The strategy for each man was slightly different though; Ryan noted a couple of times that he and Romney have adopted a policy of stopping Iran from gaining nuclear capability rather than building a nuclear weapon, which is official Israeli policy as well, while Biden went out of his way to emphasize how closely the administration has worked with Israel and how he himself has a close and longstanding personal relationship with Bibi Netanyahu. Biden’s approach might reflect one of two things: either that he generally likes to brag about his relationships with other world leaders and knows that he has an advantage in this area since Ryan is a foreign affairs neophyte and cannot make a similar claim, or that the Obama campaign has numbers suggesting that Netanyahu is popular with Americans at large and also within the American Jewish community.
On a related note, I do have to say that it was a bit strange to hear Biden repeatedly refer in a televised debate to “Bibi” as if he were some random childhood buddy or family member. I get that Biden was trying to push how well he knows Netanyahu and that informality is part of Biden’s natural shtick, but can you imagine Biden talking about any other foreign leader in such an informal manner? Not sure if this says more about Biden, Netanyahu, or the U.S.-Israel relationship more broadly, but it’s worth thinking about.
Also significant is that Raddatz did not actually ask a question about Israel, but the candidates brought it up in conjunction with talking about the Iranian nuclear program. This suggests to me that despite Netanyahu being stymied so far by his own domestic politics and by the U.S. on striking Iranian nuclear facilities, his constant barrage on the issue has still had a large effect, in that he has managed to make Israeli concerns an important part of the debate around Iran here in the U.S. I am in no way suggesting that the U.S. is in thrall to Israeli interests and will do anything solely because Israel wants it to (hear that, Mearsheimer and Walt?), but Netanyahu has done a good job of making sure that Israel’s concerns are duly noted at the upper echelons of the U.S. national security apparatus.
There was less mention of Turkey than there was of Israel last night, but it did come up in the context of Syria. Biden mentioned that we are working “hand in glove” with a number of countries, including Turkey, which is technically true, but I doubt that Erdoğan and the Turks would describe things the same way. We are certainly working with them, but the implication is that we are on the same page, which is not the case since the Turks would love to have us support an outside intervention. Of course we are trying to coordinate with Turkey, but U.S. goals and Turkish goals are very different in this case. The U.S. wants to manage the situation and keep Syria from exploding outside its borders without having to do anything particularly active, whereas Turkey wants the U.S. to ultimately get involved militarily, whether it be in establishing a no-fly zone or even to go as far as contributing troops and air support for a ground invasion to get rid of Assad. The last scenario will never happen and I am deeply skeptical that the first one will happen either, but Biden did a nifty job of glossing over these differences in pretending that the U.S. and Turkey are of one mind on this. As for Ryan, he said we should have deferred to “our allies the Turks” in coming up with a better plan for Syria. I found Ryan’s remarks on foreign policy last night to sound as if he had read from a briefing book without really thinking through the issues, and I thought his comments on Syria were far and away his weakest and most unintelligible, but hopefully somewhere Rick Perry is sitting around dazed and confused that the GOP nominee for vice president recognizes that Turkey is our ally and not run by “Islamic terrorists.”
Ottomans and Zionists 
Paul Ryan had a hard time with Syria because he does not know the issue, but he could have responded much better if Mitt Romney made his decision rules for military engagement crystal clear.
I heard the governor say this, but not clearly enough, at VMI:
“I believe it is more important that the United States remain the world’s leader in matters vital to our national security than to promise you I will not use our armed forces to do so. I hope it won’t be necessary; I am not looking for opportunities; and I will try everything else first; but I am telling everyone that if circumstances require it, I will. I believe I never will have to engage our troops in major military action, but that is an expectation, not a promise. Ronald Reagan’s policy was also “peace through strength.” Everyone said he would get us into a nuclear war. Instead, we won the Cold War.
“The difference between the president and I could not be wider, but you already know that. Look around. It’s chaos everywhere. Do you believe the president will ever use our armed forces to protect even our vital national interests? What other president of recent memory would have allowed our situation with Iran, Syria, Russia, and so many terrorist groups others to deteriorate to the extent that our ambassadors are killed in brazen attacks; that our European allies and near Asian allies are bullied by the threat of losing power in the dead of winter; and that our vital strategic ally, Turkey, that protects the eastern flank of NATO, faces all out war to avoid possible dismemberment, because Russians continue to arm a dictator who kills his own people with impunity? What other president would permit a well-armed Jihad Central to emerge on both Israel’s and Turkey’s doorsteps and in large portions of northern Africa? What other president would allow our long-time allies who rely on us to doubt our word that their national security is ours?
“President Romney won’t either.
“Under President Obama, our antagonists’ actions show that they have no fear of American military pushback. Now we have a lot of work to do. Hopefully we can repair our relationships and embark on a better future. But President Romney will start by being clear that if we cannot rejuvenate productive relations, they should be afraid and well advised to behave accordingly.”
He needs to be that explicit. If for the first time in my lifetime, Americans don’t want a vigorous – if not necessarily “aggressive” – foreign policy, then he sure isn’t going to win by being “Obama Lite,” either.
Governor Romney mostly assumes we know all that. He’s wrong. He does the same thing with his tax policy, with similar results: he leaves a vacuum that the president fills with his critiques. I’ve heard Romney do it once. But you have to explain it a million times. Paul Ryan should have done it a second time and forget about Syria. He should have explained that Romney is relying in part on economic growth to make up a lot of the difference in tax receipts. Many still do not and will not agree, but no one will agree if he or she does not understand. Same with foreign policy.
It would also help him avoid the position of having to “give specifics” about how he would act in individual situations and put his critiques into a forward-looking context.
Of course, there are many things President Obama could have done in Syria and might be productive still; you point out support for Turkey, but no wonder they are hesitant even to act in their own self-interest — which I think is screaming — and certainly not to become our surrogate in fact if we are not willing to guarantee that if disaster strikes we will make it OK. That guarantee eliminates a lot of risk up front from Russia and Iran; I am willing to gamble both are running around picking up all the crumbs we are dropping during this negligent period but will not risk tussling with us if we looked serious. I don’t think they would tussle with Turkey either — there are no victories for them there — but why make Turkey take all the risk when it’s pretty important for us, too, that things come out as well as possible in Syria. It would actually be somewhat offensive. But any “guarantee” we would give is worthless if we are not clear that we mean it, both to them and potential antagonists.
Besides, Turkey can and should be taking more responsibility in the region; why should NATO “protect” t the member with the second largest military in the alliance. Turkey’s role needs to transition into being seen as the protector, which would allow it to be the director as opposed to perpetual victim, of events. If the Syria story convinces them of that as opposed to reverting to a go along, get along foreign policy, the region will be a far better place. But that’s not the culture now, and it won’t be if we trick them once into getting aggressive, and then at the first sign of trouble, we saw off the branch behind them. I wouldn’t be tricked twice either.
Or to use an analogy, if the United States really doesn’t want to be on the front lines all the time and does want greater disengagement from the Middle East, it needs to be the sort of charismatic, supportive, transformational leader that supports others in finding their own capacity for leadership. That is a longer term project, and it means both showing we will pick up the pieces when things go wrong and then actually doing so. But our allies are dysfunctional children; I’m not so sure we’d have to pick up many pieces if our support increased their confidence to take the risks that make success a lot more likely. If we would, well, that just means we won’t be able to disengage if we want events to develop that are advantageous to us and our allies, but then it’s just no harm, no foul.
Oops! I meant our allies are NOT dysfunctional children. But we risk making them so in effect, when our leadership boils down to little more than ordering them around.