A fascinating aspect of the recent GOP convention was the party’s silence on the subject of war. Time on Ryan:
Wednesday night was supposed to be “foreign policy night” at the Republican convention in Tampa … For a country at war, it was surprising to hear the first reference to the nation’s veterans only come in the final moments of the final speech, by Ryan:
The founding generation secured those rights for us, and in every generation since, the best among us have defended our freedoms. They are protecting us right now. We honor them and all our veterans, and we thank them.
Adding up the mentions of assorted nations by Ryan, Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul yields the following tally: Afghanistan: 1 Iraq: 1 Iran: 7 Syria: 3. …
There remain 80,000 U.S. troops fighting, and dying, in Afghanistan, and a couple hundred in Iraq, which just took final delivery of 140 U.S.-built M-1 tanks as part of a $12 billion U.S. arms package. (Paul had the night’s lone provocative line: “Republicans must acknowledge that not every dollar spent on the military is necessary or well-spent.”) …
[I]t is amazing that after more than a decade of war, and 6,593 American dead (2,107 in Afghanistan and Operation Enduring Freedom; 4,487 in Iraq), the political party that spearheaded both wars is so silent on them now.
And here is Bill Kristol on Romney, the next night:
The United States has some 68,000 troops fighting in Afghanistan. Over two thousand Americans have died in the more than ten years of that war, a war Mitt Romney has supported. Yet in his speech accepting his party’s nomination to be commander in chief, Mitt Romney said not a word about the war in Afghanistan. Nor did he utter a word of appreciation to the troops fighting there, or to those who have fought there. Nor for that matter were there thanks for those who fought in Iraq, another conflict that went unmentioned.
Leave aside the question of the political wisdom of Romney’s silence, and the opportunities it opens up for President Obama next week. What about the civic propriety of a presidential nominee failing even to mention, in his acceptance speech, a war we’re fighting and our young men and women who are fighting it? Has it ever happened that we’ve been at war and a presidential nominee has ignored, in this kind of major and formal speech, the war and our warriors?
That’s not leadership.
Patrick says
BMG is eerily silent as well. Do you feel as if Afghanistan will be much of a topic at the Democratic convention? I doubt it.
Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.
HR's Kevin says
If Obama has failed so badly in Afghanistan, why isn’t Romney jumping all over it?
The problem is that Romney doesn’t have the least clue (or interest) in any aspect of foreign policy. The only club in his bag appears to be belligerence, so when it comes to Afghanistan, he has got nothing.
At the very least, Romney should have acknowledged the sacrifice of our troops overseas. He simply could care less. Self sacrifice for one’s country is not something he understands at any level.
Although our presence in Afghanistan has (not suprisingly) not been a huge success, you can bet that Obama is not going to make the mistake of ignoring it when he talks to the American people.
jconway says
The Atlantic had a similar piece on this, specifically comparing this to the ‘thousand points of lights’ speech which took a similar New England bred moderate and made him seem more conservative, but had a lot of good foreign policy insight and even cited polls showing other countries respecting America, the nuclear disarmament treaties of the 80s, and the fact that force had not been used since Vietnam as proof that Reagan had defended the peace. The very idea of defending or promoting peace, having the world respect our ideas as well as our strength, is anathema to the modern party. Isolationism and exceptionalism make a potent and toxic combination.
Patrick says
I didn’t claim Romney had any better alternative. The best he can do is point out that setting a withdrawal date is a sign of weakness. Apart from that his policy is a bit vague.
HR's Kevin says
That goes way beyond “vague”.
What doesn’t make sense is your implication that failure in Afghanistan explains silence. That would only explain why Obama might be silent (which he is not). It simply makes no sense that Romney wouldn’t try to criticize Obama on Afghanistan. Having no plan has not prevented Romney from attacking Obama on other issues. I don’t understand why he would skip over this one, especially when it would give home a chance to show solidarity with our troops overseas. Based on the Republican convention, you might think that we had no troops in harms way anywhere in the world. I don’t get it.
JHM says
Or at least look that way.
Those who pursue nifty schemes of Native Management should, if sensible, almost always hope to be noticed as little as possible. The fewer people outside the Colonial Lobby interested in colonialism, the better, for as soon as Tom, Dick and Harriet begin noticing — when there is a hard-to-miss Boer War or Tet Offensive — the whole long-term programme is put at risk.
The specially interested Colonial Lobby does have to persuade a few official persons, especially at the War Department and the Treasury, to take an interest as well. By any rational calculation, however, the fewer there are, the better.
¡Softly, softly, catchee monkey!
As ever,
Rear-Colonel McTammany
David says
if a Democratic presidential nominee – particularly an incumbent – failed in his acceptance speech even to mention, much less thank, the thousands of military personnel in an active war zone like Afghanistan? It’s frankly shocking that Romney did this. I’m encouraged that the Democrats are apparently planning to talk a lot about foreign policy in Charlotte.