The Duck of Minerva

Friday Morning Debate Reaction

Featured

by Dan Nexon

12 October 2012, 1359 EDT

I scored the Romney-Obama debate as a tactical win for Romney. As of now, it looks more like a strategic one. The lesson for me, I think, is not to assess the political ramifications of debates. So in this post, I’ll simply stick to reflecting on the foreign-policy component of the debate, which turned out to be much more prominent than most of us expected.

The bottom line is that, with the exception of the earlier Libya exchange, Biden owned Ryan. Indeed, the debate continued to underscore the vacuousness of much of the Romney campaign’s “political” critique of Obama foreign policy.

I stress  the word “political” because the Romney team isn’t wrong about some things. The Russia reset succeeded in its first- and second-order goals, but it didn’t reap the dividends that the Obama administration hoped for. We can imagine a better approach to the Arab spring. And so on. Romney and Ryan simply can’t seem to offer policy alternatives that, on their own terms, address these failings.

For example:

  • US policy in the Middle East is “unravelling” because democratization is empowering political Islamists, most notably in Egypt. The policy prescription: the US should be more unequivocal in its support for democratization.
  • The Russia Reset has failed because Moscow won’t compromise on BMD and Syria. The policy prescription: don’t compromise on BMD and on Syria.
  • Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons. The policy prescription: do what the Obama administration is doing, but with more sabre rattling of the sort that undermined efforts to formulate and implement sanctions.
  • The US exit strategy in Afghanistan won’t bring stability. The policy prescriptions: (1) keep the “surge” around longer to fight an inconclusive war with the Taliban and (2) don’t tell Kabul when the US plans to remove combat forces so as to reassure all those other ISAF members who want nothing more than to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely.

Thus, the Romney-Ryan ticket’s depressing reliance on what might be termed the “speak loudly and carry a magic wand” doctrine: their ineffable capacity for “resolve” will somehow improve the policies of the status quo and resolve all of the contradictions of the changes they propose.

Daniel H. Nexon is a Professor at Georgetown University, with a joint appointment in the Department of Government and the School of Foreign Service. His academic work focuses on international-relations theory, power politics, empires and hegemony, and international order. He has also written on the relationship between popular culture and world politics.

He has held fellowships at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation and at the Ohio State University's Mershon Center for International Studies. During 2009-2010 he worked in the U.S. Department of Defense as a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow. He was the lead editor of International Studies Quarterly from 2014-2018.

He is the author of The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change (Princeton University Press, 2009), which won the International Security Studies Section (ISSS) Best Book Award for 2010, and co-author of Exit from Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order (Oxford University Press, 2020). His articles have appeared in a lot of places. He is the founder of the The Duck of Minerva, and also blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money.

Daniel H. Nexon is a Professor at Georgetown University, with a joint appointment in the Department of Government and the School of Foreign Service. His academic work focuses on international-relations theory, power politics, empires and hegemony, and international order. He has also written on the relationship between popular culture and world politics.

He has held fellowships at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation and at the Ohio State University's Mershon Center for International Studies. During 2009-2010 he worked in the U.S. Department of Defense as a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow. He was the lead editor of International Studies Quarterly from 2014-2018.

He is the author of The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change (Princeton University Press, 2009), which won the International Security Studies Section (ISSS) Best Book Award for 2010, and co-author of Exit from Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order (Oxford University Press, 2020). His articles have appeared in a lot of places. He is the founder of the The Duck of Minerva, and also blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money.

2 Comments

  1. David Thomas
    David Thomas on 12 October 2012 at 23.34 EDT

    Yes, Romney-Ryan will keep up the “Obama fails” litany from now till election day, and hope that Obama will be as feckless in the Foreign Policy debate as he was in Round One. Joe Biden showed Ryan (and the umpty-million voters) that underneath the naysaying, R&R got nuthin’. No – Thing. I’m predicting, based on hope and change, that Obama will show up for that last debate. Anyhow, don’t forget, the undecideds could not care less about foreign policy facts and issues, it’s still the economy, stupid, in the immortal words of James Carville just a few yesterdays ago.

    Nonetheless, I think your post is helpful. I don’t keep up all that well with FP myself, so I appreciate those like you who do.

  2. LFC
    LFC on 14 October 2012 at 09.03 EDT

    Martha Raddatz, who asked the questions, is a Pentagon correspondent (or at least was for a long time); I think that’s partly why there was a lot of emphasis in the debate on defense and foreign policy.
    “speak loudly and carry a magic wand” — :-)