With Romney in
the White House, 'War is More Likely to Happen' (GazetaWyborcza, Poland)
"George W.
Bush was no hawk, and he had no definite views on Iraq. Following the September
11 attacks on New York and Washington, the void in his brain was filled by 'chicken
hawks' ... Americans or Israelis will bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, but this
won’t finish it. Iran would inevitably fire rockets at Israel and ask its
friends from Lebanese Hezbullah to do the same. What comes next is anyone's guess."
Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, left, and chief foreign policy advisor Dan Senor: when the first global crisis hits a Romney presidency, Senor - and member of the neocon brain trust that pursued the Iraq invasion, with be on hand.
Since the first presidential debate in the United States,
the question has inevitably been raised: What would happen to America, to the
world, to me - If Mitt Romney wins the election?
The answer is difficult and highly speculative. Because despite
hundreds of rallies, thousands of voters and a copious number of statements to
reporters, Mr. Romney remains an enigma. His numerous, astonishing about-faces have
become an inexhaustible source of jokes for American comedians.
For example, at a 1994 debate on the subject of abortion, Mr.
Romney declared: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this
country. A woman's right to choose should not become a campaign issue." He
later declared: "I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited
to instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother." In 2012,
he announced that, as a president, he would nominate judges to the Supreme
Court who would prohibit abortion outright.
Most likely, Romney is a technocrat who in many cases has no
views. He always tries to say what he thinks people want to hear. In 1994, when
he fought for the Senate seat of Democrat Ted Kennedy in the liberal state of
Massachusetts, Romney supported abortion. But after four years of Barack
Obama’s government, the Republican Party has radicalized and moved to the right.
Romney, as a supporter of abortion, would have had no chance at the nomination.
So he became a staunch defender of the unborn.
A president without any definitive views has his advantages
and disadvantages. He would be devoid of prejudices, listening to conflicting
opinions and hopefully, the void in his worldview void would be filled with the
views (whatever that means).
Posted by Worldmeets.US
But things may happen to trigger a different result. George
W. Bush was no hawk, and he had no definite views on Iraq or the Arab world in
general. Following the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, the
void in his brain was filled by "chicken hawks": meaning people who
never fought with weapons themselves - but are very eager to send others to war
(Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld).
America lost nearly 5,000 soldiers and spent at least $1 trillion.
Therefore, the kind of people that surround Mitt Romney surrounds
himself with is important - the so-called "potential information or
ideological void fillers." Dan Senor, who was a senior official in the George
W. Bush Administration, is Mr. Romney’s principal foreign policy adviser. It
would be unfair to call him a "chicken hawk" because he smells
slightly of gunpowder: he worked as a spokesman for the U.S. provisional
government in Baghdad. But he is widely regarded as a hawk. This summer, during
Romney’s visit to Israel, Mr. Senor told reporters "Mitt believes that
Israel has the right to attack Iran."
Such honeyed words bring joy to the heart of Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who since his youth has been a good friend of
Romney - in the 1980s both worked at Boston Consulting Group.
Therefore, if Romney moves into the White House, a war is more likely
to happen. Americans or Israelis will bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, but this
won’t finish it. Iran would inevitably fire rockets at Israel and ask its
friends from Lebanese Hezbullah to do the same (Iran has sponsored Hezbullah
for years). What comes next is anyone's guess.
If there is an issue that Romney may have well-established
views, it would be on the economy. For a quarter century, before moving into
politics, he had a brilliant career in business. His pre-election comments suggest
moderate view, in which case there would be no revolution.
During the debate with Mr. Obama, the Republican candidate
announced that he wouldn't cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans (he wants to
lower all rates, but end deductions). And he recently spoke of keeping some
provisions of Obama's health care reform - hated by Republicans - that protect
people from unfair or immoral practices on the part of insurance companies. He supposedly
plans to cut some government departments, but surely not enough to satisfy
radical conservatives, who almost dream of the state's self-destruction.
And in Polish-American relations we shouldn't expect big
changes. Admittedly, Romney was in Poland this past summer, but the main reason
for his visit was to accuse Mr. Obama of neglecting America's allies. The
Republican candidate’s biography indicates he has the same sentiment on Poland
as Obama - which means none. We shouldn't count on evidence of love from across
the ocean - at least until another war happens in which we could demonstrate
ourselves as strong allies of America.
But this is not the most important thing. Most importantly, it
is that Romney's America will remain the guarantor of our security.
