Tuesday, September 11, 2007

MITT ROMNEY

Is Romney the Anti-War Candidate? No. Having Said That...

Elsewhere on NRO, in an article entitled, “Disowning a War,” David Freddoso writes that Mitt Romney “is unique among the serious Republican presidential contenders because he has never said he would [invade Iraq] all over again, and they all have.”

I would add to that even beyond the lack of “I would do it again,” Romney has used a distinctively different tone when assessing the surge, contemplating partitioning Iraq, and “changing course in Iraq”, compared to most of his rivals.

One staffer with a rival campaign has been urging me, at length, to write that Romney is the anti-war candidate in the race. When told, “He’s even less a supporter of the war than Ron Paul!” I urged the staffer to switch to decaf. But he did prompt me to take a long look at Romney’s comments on the war.

While it’s not fair to say Romney opposes the surge, the former Massachusetts governor is much more circumspect about discussing its success. We saw John McCain pounce on him for saying that “apparently” the surge is succeeding; but for most of the past few months, Romney has preferred the word “if.” For example, on August 12, appearing on Fox News Sunday:

FOX NEWS’ CHRIS WALLACE: “You say that you support the surge, quote, ‘at this point.’ How would President Romney decide how long you would continue to keep this enhanced number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq?”

ROMNEY: “Well, obviously, a hypothetical with all the potential permutations of what might develop is kind of hard to fashion, but if we’re making progress that suggests there's a reasonable probability of success in stabilizing Iraq, that’s a course I'm going to follow.”

On August 28, Romney was quoted in the Detroit News as saying, “At this stage I have said I view the surge as the right step for us to be taking. … But it’s by no means a sure thing, and I support it so long as there is a reasonable probability that it will be successful.”

On September 5, Romney was quoted in the Concord Monitor as saying, “If the surge is succeeding, and has reasonable prospects of succeeding, then I anticipate we will keep it in place.”

Romney has made comments suggesting he’s open to Sen. Joseph Biden’s plan to partition Iraq. This position isn’t totally unheard of in GOP circles– Sen. Sam Brownback supports the idea – but it’s opposed by the Bush administration and not wildly popular among Republicans.

Back on April 28, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review reported, “One argument that [Romney] said made sense to him was pushed by U.S. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., who advocated dividing Iraq into three separate regions dominated by Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. ‘At least in the case of Sen. Biden, he puts a plan forward that has some prospect of success,’ Mr. Romney said. ‘But the challenge with that plan is it adds an additional risk, a risk which is not incurred if a central [Iraq] and a government remains. A central government can maintain its borders against Iran and quell al-Qaida. You have to have a central government for that to happen.’ With that in mind, he said, he’d prefer to see how the current U.S. troop surge works before exploring other options in Iraq.”

Then on May 19, ABC News reported that he again mentioned the Biden plan as a potential future option: “On Iraq, Romney continued to voice support for the ‘surge’ strategy in Iraq, but said when he becomes president all possible strategies are on the table. ‘All the options that are being spoken of today, for instance, Joe Biden says let’s divide the country up and leave. That option will still be available 6 months from now.’”

And while “change of course” could represent a wide variety of policy options, it is worth noting that the Palm Beach Post reported on July 8, “Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney said Saturday he is willing to change course in Iraq – as some Republican senators have now done – and is keeping an eye on the recent troop surge there.”

The rival staffer argues that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are more steadfast on Iraq than Romney. That argument relies heavily on how one interprets those senators’ remarks about committing troops to long-term goals in Iraq. But, for comparison… 

Back in March, Clinton ran afoul of antiwar crowd when she discussed her plan with The New York Times: “[Clinton] declined to estimate the number of American troops she would keep in Iraq, saying she would draw on the advice of military officers. … The idea of repositioning American forces to minimize American casualties, discourage Iranian, Syrian and Turkish intervention, and forestall the Kurds’ declaring independence is not a new one. It has been advocated by Dov S. Zakheim, who served as the Pentagon’s comptroller under former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Mr. Zakheim has estimated that no more than 75,000 troops would be required, compared to the approximately 160,000 troops the United States will have in Iraq when the additional brigades in Mr. Bush’s plan are deployed. While Mrs. Clinton declined to estimate the size of a residual American troop presence, she indicated that troops might be based north of Baghdad and in western Anbar Province.”

Also, there was this interesting but secondhand comment from former Nightline host Ted Koppel on NPR: “[I] ran into an old source the other day who held a senior position at the Pentagon until his retirement. He occasionally briefs Sen. Clinton on the situation in the Gulf. She told him that if she were elected president, and then re-elected four years later, she would still expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq at the end of her second term. We’re talking about a shade less than ten years from now.” 

Regarding Obama, he said in January that his plan allows for “a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces…  And if the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration itself, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have actually been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.”

There is one manner in which the comments by Clinton, Obama, and Romney are comparable: each one is feeling heat from intensely pro- and anti-war constituencies, and all of them want to keep their options open for when they actually might have to make the decisions, starting on January 20, 2009.

09/11 05:09 PMShare