Counterstrike: Answering Conservative Charges on National Security

Even though the focus of this election is the economy, national security remains a prominent issue and a critical test of a candidate’s fitness to serve as Commander in Chief. Vigorously debating how best to keep America safe must be a core part of any presidential campaign. Thus, convention watchers should expect to see the Republican Party attack the Obama Administration’s record on national security, while outlining what foreign policy would look like in a Romney Administration. In some cases these critiques set out differences in tone, while in others they reflect a substantive policy difference.

This memo lays out the likely themes and critiques we should expect to see and the potential responses to them.

General Critique

While the Romney campaign has declined to be specific about most foreign policy issues (e.g. what he would do differently in confronting Iran or withdrawing from Afghanistan), it has consistently criticized the President’s approach. Underlying these critiques is a claim that the Obama Administration is failing to show American leadership in the world.

The Obama Administration is undermining American leadership in the world by apologizing for America.#

The Facts:

• Despite the oft-repeated criticism, President Obama has not apologized for America. Glenn Kessler, in his Fact Checker column in The Washington Post, found that “the apology tour never happened,” awarding it four Pinocchios.#
• President Obama has repeatedly stated his belief in American exceptionalism. As he said at his inauguration, “We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense.”
• Indeed, President Obama began restoring America’s reputation and leadership on the world stage. When President Obama took office in 2008, global views of the U.S. had plummeted from post 9/11 highs to record lows.# President Obama’s election restored positive views of America, which have remained significantly higher than during the Bush era.#

President Obama has been determined and steadfast in eliminating al Qaeda. He has demonstrated strong and effective leadership on the world stage. The U.S. has gained international support to address challenges like Libya and Iran.

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, columnist Charles Krauthammer, and others have claimed the Obama Administration has been “leading from behind,” rather than asserting American leadership as the sole remaining superpower.#

The Facts:

Those who level this charge suggest the U.S. should adopt a leadership style that requires us to be at the forefront of every issue, even when a U.S. face on the solution would be counterproductive.

• Direct U.S. involvement and pressure during the Arab Spring revolutions would have allowed dictators to demonize the U.S., keeping the focus away from the legitimate demands of the reformers.
• The Obama Administration’s approach has resulted in positive outcomes for the U.S. without requiring an occupation in order to achieve it. For example, in Libya, the Administration got UN authorization to act, our NATO allies helped provide military support to the rebels, and Gadhafi was ousted without sending in U.S. troops.#

President Obama is choosing tough and smart approaches to foreign policy situations. He knows that it’s more important to get an outcome that’s good for America than get credit for an aggressive approach that could end badly.

Romney has a well-developed foreign policy that would be better than the Obama approach.”

The Facts:

Prominent Republicans have endorsed Obama’s approach and raised questions about Governor Romney’s foreign policy statements and experience.

• Nicholas Burns, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs for President George W. Bush, wrote about Romney’s summer trip to London, Israel, and Poland: “Romney undermined himself through surprising lapses in judgment and careless rhetoric, and he failed to articulate his core beliefs on international policy. Far from building confidence in his foreign-policy credentials, the trip actually fueled doubts about his readiness to lead in the most complex and dangerous international environment in a generation.”#
• When Governor Romney referred to Russia as America’s “number-one geopolitical foe,”# former Secretary of State Colin Powell rebuked Romney on Russia saying, “C’mon, Mitt, think. That isn’t the case.”#
• When Governor Romney injected himself into an on-going controversy about a Chinese dissident who was seeking asylum in the American Embassy in Beijing, conservative columnist Bill Kristol called his remarks “foolish.”#
• In June, former Republican Secretary of State James Baker criticized Mitt Romney’s statement that he would immediately label China “a currency manipulator” and endorsed President Obama’s approach saying: “I think the policy that we should be pursuing is pretty much the policy we are pursuing… one of our big gripes today with China is that they manipulate their currency, and they do. Now, should we call them a manipulator or not? Or would we be better off trying to get over that hurdle quietly through quiet diplomacy and serious diplomacy and strength—strong diplomacy? That’s my view of the way we ought to be approaching that.”#
• Conservative columnist David Brooks criticized Mitt Romney’s attempts to articulate his foreign policy, writing: “Mitt Romney has been wandering around the country trying to find a place to disagree with Barack Obama…He’s desperately trying, and every time he does, he looks like an idiot, because he has to say something so far out there on Russia or whatever it is.”#
• Governor Romney’s primary opponents raised questions about his foreign policy expertise. In 2012, former Senator Rick Santorum argued that Governor Romney “has no experience in international and national security affairs.”# In 2008, Senator McCain’s presidential campaign concluded in an internal document that “Romney has no foreign policy experience” and that “Romney’s foreign affairs resume is extremely thin, leading to credibility problems.”#

President Obama has a tough and smart foreign policy which received bipartisan support, and the support of a majority of Americans. He has been a strong commander-in-chief. Governor Romney’s own words have raised serious doubts even in the minds of some of his supporters about his foreign policy judgement.

Defense Spending

In 2011, a Republican House and Democratic Senate both voted to pass the Budget Control Act that decreases the rate of growth in defense spending over the next decade to reflect that military operations have either ended or are drawing down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Governor Romney has claimed that the Administration is endangering America by arbitrarily cutting defense spending and reducing the size of our military. As an alternative, Romney wants to fix defense spending to at least 4% of GDP, regardless of GDP size or the nature of the threat.

The Facts:

• Right now, defense spending under Governor Romney’s plan would be $600 billion, which is more than the U.S. spent per year for the Defense Department’s base budget from 2003-2008, during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.#
• The Romney plan would increase current spending on the military by 18% and military manpower by 20%.# Such increases would make the military larger than it was during the height of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.#
• The President has ordered military personnel drawdowns as the two wars come to a close—a decision supported by top military brass and a majority of Americans.# Our military spending should rise and fall with the nation’s security needs, not remain arbitrarily high as a percentage of GDP.

President Obama and his senior military advisors have developed a strategy to keep the nation safe and our military budgeted accordingly. The Romney/Ryan ticket would saddle our military with costs and manpower they don’t need for wars we aren’t planning to fight.

Dealing with Iran

Republicans have criticized Obama’s approach to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Governor Romney has suggested his administration would be tougher on stopping a potential Iranian nuclear weapons program. A Ryan advisor has suggested that the U.S. should commit now to using force against Iran.#

The Facts:

• The U.S. has taken a very strong stance against Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program—enforcing crippling economic sanctions and keeping military options on the table.#
• The only specific step the Obama Administration hasn’t taken that would be tougher is to strike Iran militarily. Vice President Biden has suggested that if Mitt Romney plans to start a military conflict with Iran to stop the nuclear program, he should say so.#

The President has made it clear that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. He has taken every step possible short of war, and he is keeping the military option on the table. If the Republicans want to go to war immediately with a country three times the size of Iraq and over twice as populated, they should tell that to the American people.

Counterterrorism

Governor Romney and other Republicans have been quick to criticize President Obama’s record against al Qaeda and other extremist organizations. This is a difficult charge to make stick—the President possesses a strong counterterrorism record.

Anyone would have ordered the bin Laden raid. Republicans contend that Obama shouldn’t be given any credit for the success of the bin Laden raid. Governor Romney has repeatedly said that anyone in Obama’s shoes would have made the same decision, and “even Jimmy Carter, would have given the order” to launch the raid against bin Laden’s Abbottabad stronghold.#

The Facts:

• From the beginning of his presidency, Obama made bin Laden a priority; he said, “shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the Director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al-Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.”#
• Despite other officials, including Vice President Biden, Secretary of Defense Gates, and Secretary Clinton, advising against the raid, Obama decided to give the “go” order.#
• Admiral Bill McRaven, the head of U.S. Special Operations Command, said, “at the end of the day, make no mistake about it, it was the President of the United States that shouldered the burden for this operation, that made the hard decisions.”#
• In 2007, Romney stated it was “not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.”#

President Obama made catching bin Laden a priority on Day One. He directed our intelligence community and military to find him, and when they did, he made the right call to bring him to justice.

In a recent television ad, a new group called Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund released a video criticizing the White House for “politically capitalizing” on the bin Laden operation. Other criticisms have stemmed from the Administration’s decision to cooperate with filmmakers over the upcoming movie about the bin Laden raid, “Zero Dark Thirty.”

The Facts:

• Anyone who listened to the President’s May 1st, 2011 late-night speech would know that Obama gave credit where credit is due. He praised the brave Navy SEALs who conducted the raid and the intelligence apparatus that put enormous time and effort into obtaining the intelligence that led to this mission.#
• Politifact looked at OPSEC’s video and labeled its accusations “mostly false,” finding no evidence that the Administration shared classified or sensitive information with the filmmakers, or singled them out for special treatment.#
• SEALs have cooperated independently with Hollywood on movies regarding secret military missions. The film “Act of Valor” is a recent example. Also, a SEAL who participated in the bin Laden raid is writing a book about the mission.
• Peter Bergen, CNN’s National Security Analyst, thoroughly debunks the entire video as well as the idea that the President is claiming undue credit, finding that “The notion that the decision to greenlight the risky raid was made by anyone other than Obama is just plain silly, and it was a decision he made against the advice of both his vice president and his secretary of defense.“#

The squabbling within the SEAL community is a distraction from the real issue – the effectiveness of the President’s campaign against al Qaeda. At the end of the day, the American people are safer because bin Laden can never plan an attack nor raise another dime for terrorists.

Obama has been simultaneously too hard and too soft on terrorists. Republicans criticize drone strikes for their harshness, claiming that the Administration should capture terrorism suspects instead. At the same time, they criticize efforts to try terrorism suspects in American courtrooms as too soft.

The Facts:

• The President has taken a calibrated approach to eliminating terrorist threats, using the most effective tools. Different threats call for different approaches.
• Over the past decade, we have learned the value of a lighter footprint when operating in tough parts of the world. Drone strikes have allowed the U.S. to eliminate dangerous terrorists without sending in American troops on the ground, risking their lives.
• The President has brought terrorists to justice using the most effective tools at his disposal. In some cases, he has sought trials while in others he has worked with our allies to keep the threats from coming near the U.S.

Conclusion

Even though the election will remain focused on economic issues, Democrats should expect criticism of the President’s national security record and policies, but not duck the debate. President Obama has the strongest national security record of any Democrat in a generation. We recommend using the President’s policy strength to address these criticisms head on.

Even though the focus of this election is the economy, national security remains a prominent issue and a critical test of a candidate’s fitness to serve as Commander in Chief. Vigorously debating how best to keep America safe must be a core part of any presidential campaign. Thus, convention watchers should expect to see the Republican Party attack the Obama Administration’s record on national security, while outlining what foreign policy would look like in a Romney Administration. In some cases these critiques set out differences in tone, while in others they reflect a substantive policy difference.

This memo lays out the likely themes and critiques we should expect to see and the potential responses to them.

General Critique

While the Romney campaign has declined to be specific about most foreign policy issues (e.g. what he would do differently in confronting Iran or withdrawing from Afghanistan), it has consistently criticized the President’s approach. Underlying these critiques is a claim that the Obama Administration is failing to show American leadership in the world.

The Obama Administration is undermining American leadership in the world by apologizing for America.#

The Facts:

• Despite the oft-repeated criticism, President Obama has not apologized for America. Glenn Kessler, in his Fact Checker column in The Washington Post, found that “the apology tour never happened,” awarding it four Pinocchios.#
• President Obama has repeatedly stated his belief in American exceptionalism. As he said at his inauguration, “We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense.”
• Indeed, President Obama began restoring America’s reputation and leadership on the world stage. When President Obama took office in 2008, global views of the U.S. had plummeted from post 9/11 highs to record lows.# President Obama’s election restored positive views of America, which have remained significantly higher than during the Bush era.#

President Obama has been determined and steadfast in eliminating al Qaeda. He has demonstrated strong and effective leadership on the world stage. The U.S. has gained international support to address challenges like Libya and Iran.

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, columnist Charles Krauthammer, and others have claimed the Obama Administration has been “leading from behind,” rather than asserting American leadership as the sole remaining superpower.#

The Facts:

Those who level this charge suggest the U.S. should adopt a leadership style that requires us to be at the forefront of every issue, even when a U.S. face on the solution would be counterproductive.

• Direct U.S. involvement and pressure during the Arab Spring revolutions would have allowed dictators to demonize the U.S., keeping the focus away from the legitimate demands of the reformers.
• The Obama Administration’s approach has resulted in positive outcomes for the U.S. without requiring an occupation in order to achieve it. For example, in Libya, the Administration got UN authorization to act, our NATO allies helped provide military support to the rebels, and Gadhafi was ousted without sending in U.S. troops.#

President Obama is choosing tough and smart approaches to foreign policy situations. He knows that it’s more important to get an outcome that’s good for America than get credit for an aggressive approach that could end badly.

Romney has a well-developed foreign policy that would be better than the Obama approach.”

The Facts:

Prominent Republicans have endorsed Obama’s approach and raised questions about Governor Romney’s foreign policy statements and experience.

• Nicholas Burns, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs for President George W. Bush, wrote about Romney’s summer trip to London, Israel, and Poland: “Romney undermined himself through surprising lapses in judgment and careless rhetoric, and he failed to articulate his core beliefs on international policy. Far from building confidence in his foreign-policy credentials, the trip actually fueled doubts about his readiness to lead in the most complex and dangerous international environment in a generation.”#
• When Governor Romney referred to Russia as America’s “number-one geopolitical foe,”# former Secretary of State Colin Powell rebuked Romney on Russia saying, “C’mon, Mitt, think. That isn’t the case.”#
• When Governor Romney injected himself into an on-going controversy about a Chinese dissident who was seeking asylum in the American Embassy in Beijing, conservative columnist Bill Kristol called his remarks “foolish.”#
• In June, former Republican Secretary of State James Baker criticized Mitt Romney’s statement that he would immediately label China “a currency manipulator” and endorsed President Obama’s approach saying: “I think the policy that we should be pursuing is pretty much the policy we are pursuing… one of our big gripes today with China is that they manipulate their currency, and they do. Now, should we call them a manipulator or not? Or would we be better off trying to get over that hurdle quietly through quiet diplomacy and serious diplomacy and strength—strong diplomacy? That’s my view of the way we ought to be approaching that.”#
• Conservative columnist David Brooks criticized Mitt Romney’s attempts to articulate his foreign policy, writing: “Mitt Romney has been wandering around the country trying to find a place to disagree with Barack Obama…He’s desperately trying, and every time he does, he looks like an idiot, because he has to say something so far out there on Russia or whatever it is.”#
• Governor Romney’s primary opponents raised questions about his foreign policy expertise. In 2012, former Senator Rick Santorum argued that Governor Romney “has no experience in international and national security affairs.”# In 2008, Senator McCain’s presidential campaign concluded in an internal document that “Romney has no foreign policy experience” and that “Romney’s foreign affairs resume is extremely thin, leading to credibility problems.”#

President Obama has a tough and smart foreign policy which received bipartisan support, and the support of a majority of Americans. He has been a strong commander-in-chief. Governor Romney’s own words have raised serious doubts even in the minds of some of his supporters about his foreign policy judgement.

Defense Spending

In 2011, a Republican House and Democratic Senate both voted to pass the Budget Control Act that decreases the rate of growth in defense spending over the next decade to reflect that military operations have either ended or are drawing down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Governor Romney has claimed that the Administration is endangering America by arbitrarily cutting defense spending and reducing the size of our military. As an alternative, Romney wants to fix defense spending to at least 4% of GDP, regardless of GDP size or the nature of the threat.

The Facts:

• Right now, defense spending under Governor Romney’s plan would be $600 billion, which is more than the U.S. spent per year for the Defense Department’s base budget from 2003-2008, during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.#
• The Romney plan would increase current spending on the military by 18% and military manpower by 20%.# Such increases would make the military larger than it was during the height of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.#
• The President has ordered military personnel drawdowns as the two wars come to a close—a decision supported by top military brass and a majority of Americans.# Our military spending should rise and fall with the nation’s security needs, not remain arbitrarily high as a percentage of GDP.

President Obama and his senior military advisors have developed a strategy to keep the nation safe and our military budgeted accordingly. The Romney/Ryan ticket would saddle our military with costs and manpower they don’t need for wars we aren’t planning to fight.

Dealing with Iran

Republicans have criticized Obama’s approach to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Governor Romney has suggested his administration would be tougher on stopping a potential Iranian nuclear weapons program. A Ryan advisor has suggested that the U.S. should commit now to using force against Iran.#

The Facts:

• The U.S. has taken a very strong stance against Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program—enforcing crippling economic sanctions and keeping military options on the table.#
• The only specific step the Obama Administration hasn’t taken that would be tougher is to strike Iran militarily. Vice President Biden has suggested that if Mitt Romney plans to start a military conflict with Iran to stop the nuclear program, he should say so.#

The President has made it clear that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. He has taken every step possible short of war, and he is keeping the military option on the table. If the Republicans want to go to war immediately with a country three times the size of Iraq and over twice as populated, they should tell that to the American people.

Counterterrorism

Governor Romney and other Republicans have been quick to criticize President Obama’s record against al Qaeda and other extremist organizations. This is a difficult charge to make stick—the President possesses a strong counterterrorism record.

Anyone would have ordered the bin Laden raid. Republicans contend that Obama shouldn’t be given any credit for the success of the bin Laden raid. Governor Romney has repeatedly said that anyone in Obama’s shoes would have made the same decision, and “even Jimmy Carter, would have given the order” to launch the raid against bin Laden’s Abbottabad stronghold.#

The Facts:

• From the beginning of his presidency, Obama made bin Laden a priority; he said, “shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the Director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al-Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.”#
• Despite other officials, including Vice President Biden, Secretary of Defense Gates, and Secretary Clinton, advising against the raid, Obama decided to give the “go” order.#
• Admiral Bill McRaven, the head of U.S. Special Operations Command, said, “at the end of the day, make no mistake about it, it was the President of the United States that shouldered the burden for this operation, that made the hard decisions.”#
• In 2007, Romney stated it was “not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.”#

President Obama made catching bin Laden a priority on Day One. He directed our intelligence community and military to find him, and when they did, he made the right call to bring him to justice.

In a recent television ad, a new group called Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund released a video criticizing the White House for “politically capitalizing” on the bin Laden operation. Other criticisms have stemmed from the Administration’s decision to cooperate with filmmakers over the upcoming movie about the bin Laden raid, “Zero Dark Thirty.”

The Facts:

• Anyone who listened to the President’s May 1st, 2011 late-night speech would know that Obama gave credit where credit is due. He praised the brave Navy SEALs who conducted the raid and the intelligence apparatus that put enormous time and effort into obtaining the intelligence that led to this mission.#
• Politifact looked at OPSEC’s video and labeled its accusations “mostly false,” finding no evidence that the Administration shared classified or sensitive information with the filmmakers, or singled them out for special treatment.#
• SEALs have cooperated independently with Hollywood on movies regarding secret military missions. The film “Act of Valor” is a recent example. Also, a SEAL who participated in the bin Laden raid is writing a book about the mission.
• Peter Bergen, CNN’s National Security Analyst, thoroughly debunks the entire video as well as the idea that the President is claiming undue credit, finding that “The notion that the decision to greenlight the risky raid was made by anyone other than Obama is just plain silly, and it was a decision he made against the advice of both his vice president and his secretary of defense.“#

The squabbling within the SEAL community is a distraction from the real issue – the effectiveness of the President’s campaign against al Qaeda. At the end of the day, the American people are safer because bin Laden can never plan an attack nor raise another dime for terrorists.

Obama has been simultaneously too hard and too soft on terrorists. Republicans criticize drone strikes for their harshness, claiming that the Administration should capture terrorism suspects instead. At the same time, they criticize efforts to try terrorism suspects in American courtrooms as too soft.

The Facts:

• The President has taken a calibrated approach to eliminating terrorist threats, using the most effective tools. Different threats call for different approaches.
• Over the past decade, we have learned the value of a lighter footprint when operating in tough parts of the world. Drone strikes have allowed the U.S. to eliminate dangerous terrorists without sending in American troops on the ground, risking their lives.
• The President has brought terrorists to justice using the most effective tools at his disposal. In some cases, he has sought trials while in others he has worked with our allies to keep the threats from coming near the U.S.

Conclusion

Even though the election will remain focused on economic issues, Democrats should expect criticism of the President’s national security record and policies, but not duck the debate. President Obama has the strongest national security record of any Democrat in a generation. We recommend using the President’s policy strength to address these criticisms head on.