Mitt Romney has spent the 2012 campaign positioning himself as a hawk on every foreign policy issue. In reality a President Romney would be constrained by a variety of factors which would likely hamper implementing a hawkish neo-conservative foreign policy.
Through the 2012 campaign Romney has sought to shed his reputation as a moderate by taking on strong conservative positions on every issue, including foreign policy. He has adopted the tone if not the policies of George W. Bush when his background suggested he might be inclined towards the moderation of George HW Bush. In a recent article for RUSI.org, Matthew Jamison displays the contours of Romney's foreign policy challenge, highlighting the hawkish campaign positions Romney has staked out on foreign policy and the difficulty posed by attacking the Obama Administration on foreign policy ground. This article argues that the reality of a Romney Administration would be much more restrained through a mixture of economic and domestic considerations as well as the geostrategic realities it will encounter.
Economic Realities
Upon election a President Romney would likely adopt Bill Clinton's approach and 'focus like a laser beam on the economy'. Economic growth will be the sine qua non of his first few years in office as Romney has articulated that his business experience is his most effective qualification to be president. A Romney victory would be largely based on the electorate's acceptance of that and he would be expected to focus his attention on the domestic economy rather than pursuing an expansive foreign policy.
As the Bush Administration demonstrated, implementing a neo-conservative foreign policy is an expensive proposition. According to the Congressional Research Service the 2003 Iraq War cost the US$802 billion over the last decade. The ongoing US presence in Afghanistan has cost $455.4 billion over the same period. President Obama has stated that these combat troops will be withdrawn by 2014 leaving a training presence in the country. Romney in contrast has stated that withdrawal will come only when military commanders are satisfied with the security situation. A commitment to remain in Afghanistan past 2014, when the national elections in Afghanistan are scheduled, may well be a significant fiscal burden. Other potential neo-conservative foreign policy objectives include undertaking pre-emptive military action against Iran. This would require a significant and expensive military deployment in order to protect Israel and other regional allies from any Iranian counter-attack. Moreover further Middle Eastern conflict will likely further drive up the price of crude oil, which will be quickly felt by US consumers.
Commitments by Romney to reduce America's national debt are uneasily juxtaposed with expensive foreign policy commitments. This is especially true as Romney has campaigned to lower tax revenues as a supply-side solution to America's current slow growth rate. If Romney is seriously committed to reducing the US national debt, then expensive and enduring foreign policy commitments are fiscally unsustainable.
Campaign Bluster
Romney's rhetoric throughout this campaign has delivered the impression that he a hawkish neo-conservative. He has promised unconditional support for Israel, de-emphasising the importance of an Israeli/Palestinian peace deal to the region; he has called Russia a 'geopolitical foe' and pledged to treat China as a currency manipulator whilst pressuring Beijing on human rights. These hawkish positions seem uncharacteristic for Romney with his previous history of moderation. His background, as a northern Republican with international exposure from his time at the Winter Olympics and Bain Capital, is much closer to George HW Bush who represented the realist-internationalist wing of the Republican Party rather than George W Bush who pursued an aggressive, neo-conservative approach in his first term. Â
However Romney has sought the nomination from a party that has shifted further rightwards over the recent decades and has expressed concerns over Romney's former moderation on social and economic issues. Foreign policy has been a useful way of appealing to conservative voters, particularly the evangelical wing of his party who have a long and enduring distrust of Romney's Mormon faith. As an electoral necessity Romney needs a strong commitment from conservatives and is using his foreign policy positions to achieve this.Â
Recently Romney criticised Obama's speech, in which the president called for the 1967 borders to be the start of any peace deal, stating the president had 'thrown Israel under the bus'. Evangelical voters have religiously motivated opposition to any deal in which Israel gives up any territory and Romney's Israel policy captures the core of their demands. A strong commitment to Israel could also help to deliver Florida and its crucial Electoral College votes.
Labelling China as a 'currency manipulator' is part of a protectionist themed appeal to voters in northern industrial states like Michigan and Ohio, whose manufacturing base has suffered in competition with China, and who Romney needs to win.
There is always a contrast with a candidate's campaign rhetoric and their actual record in government. George W Bush opposed the use of US troops in nation building projects and Barack Obama pledged to swiftly close Guantanamo Bay upon taking office. It is interesting to note that Romney has appointed Robert Zoellick, former Deputy Secretary of State and President of the World Bank, as the head of his foreign policy transition team, balancing against neo-conservative figures like Robert Kagan and Elliot Cohen. The more moderate Zoellick belongs to the realist wing of the Republican Party and could be the clearest signal yet that a President Romney would adopt a different approach to candidate Romney. Recently at the convention he ensured that a commitment to a two state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict remained on the Republican Party platform as some within sought to drop reference to it.
Geostrategic Demands
Recently Romney's foreign policy advisor Richard Williamson attacked Obama's multilateral approach; questioning its effectiveness as a method for conducting foreign policy and portraying compromise and engagement with more unpleasant regimes as an abrogation of American values. Romney himself has expanded on this theme contentiously stating that Obama, as president had 'apologised for America'.
This bellicose rhetoric on Obama's international engagement has missed the fact that diplomacy has begun to yield results on the foreign policy issue that Romney views as the most critical, Iran. The Obama Administration's diplomatic efforts have secured a fourth round of sanctions against Iran. It has secured European co-operation in tightening and expanding the sanctions on Iran, closing a market which received 23% of its oil exports.
Romney in contrast has not proposed any policies aimed at halting an Iranian nuclear programme save that he would use a military option against Iran if required. In a Washington Post op-ed he stated that the path of Iranian nuclear ambitions led to 'ruin'. However any attack on Iran will cause the price of oil to spike and the Iranian government has threatened to exacerbate this by disrupting traffic through the Straits of Hormuz, an important communications link in the international oil trade. Any economic recovery would be adversely affected by high oil prices which would likely make Romney more cautious in his approach to Iran if president.
A Pragmatic Man, in an Ideological Party?
Romney's record as Governor reveals a history of moderate political positions. His background would suggest he would belong to the George H W Bush foreign policy wing of party, with its focus on realism and its openness to working with international institutions. However the race for the 2012 Republican nomination has been noticeable by its sharp political shift towards the right, and Romney has adopted the positions of a hawkish neo-conservative to in order to reinforce his conservative credentials. To what extend he would seek to implement the foreign policy positions he has campaigned on has been an enduring question through his pursuit of the party's nomination. Whether he will seek to re-emerge as a moderate on foreign policy, expending political capital he will need in dealing with the economy is difficult to predict.
You can follow the author on Twitter @alexdimascio or contact via alexanderd@rusi.org
The views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of RUSI.