Albright & Berger: Romney's foreign policy is unfocused

Madeleine K. Albright and Samuel R. Berger | USATODAY

In Tuesday's debate, Governor Mitt Romney demonstrated the flawed nature of his approach to national security. Instead of outlining a clear and coherent vision of what he would do as commander in chief, he has chosen to attack the administration for alleged weakness. This accusation is based on assertions – that the president has failed to support allies or stand up for America – that are simply not supported by facts.

Recall that, on his first day in office, President Obama confronted two hot wars, a persistent terrorist threat, a global economic crisis, a divided NATO and an America whose international prestige had fallen to the lowest levels since the Vietnam War. Obviously, the president possessed no magic wand and could not solve every dilemma overnight, but he immediately set to work and has shown a remarkable steadiness of purpose.

Eric Cantor: Obama's foreign policy harms U.S., allies





From the beginning of his term, Obama's top priority has been to protect the U.S. homeland through an unrelenting pursuit of Al-Qaeda and like-minded groups. In this connection, consider the April 2012 assessment of Jack Goldsmith, assistant attorney general under President George W. Bush:

Through bold use of intelligence, drones and special forces, Obama's team has killed Osama bin Laden and dozens of other senior terrorists. Almost as important, Obama's rhetorical focus on war against al-Qaeda rather than war against Islamists has damaged al-Qaeda's brand and has drawn complaints from terrorists (including bin Laden, according to documents found after his death). The original al-Qaeda organization seems in disarray.

Rather than rest on this record, the administration has continued relentlessly to pursue elements of al-Qaeda and its affiliates as they sought refuge outside their original home base. Last month's assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, whether or not directly connected to al-Qaeda, will do nothing to strengthen the terrorist cause. On the contrary, Libyan leaders have universally condemned the attack and are cooperating with U.S. authorities to identify the perpetrators. Obama has made clear that, on his watch, terrorists will have no place to run or hide.

Meanwhile, under the president's strong leadership, we extricated our combat troops from Iraq, and after more than a decade of fighting, our armed forces have begun a transition to local control in Afghanistan. Despite pressure from multiple directions, the president has remained firm in supporting democratic processes in the Middle East. With help from our NATO allies, the U.S. led a coalition that provided the military force to depose Moammar Qadhafi. This led to the establishment of a reformist government that has been a partner in the war on the al-Qaeda affiliate there. Governor Romney appears to object to President Obama's willingness to share the burden of these operations with our NATO allies, suggesting the U.S. "led from behind." But leadership is not about being out front and alone. It is about leading a strong coalition and executing on a strategy.

At the same time, the administration has assembled a robust international coalition to tighten multilateral sanctions against Iran, whose radical leaders are facing an economic meltdown and under obvious stress. The president has stated explicitly that Iran will not be allowed to build or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons – prevention, not containment, is the only option. In this context, Obama and his advisers have been in continuous contact with Israel regarding Iran's nuclear program and other potential threats.

Simultaneously, the United States has increased military assistance to Israel to unprecedented levels, including support for Israel's Iron Dome program, which is protecting innocent villagers from Gaza-based rocket attacks, and stood with it at the U.N. when others sought to undermine its international position. It's little wonder that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak says, "I can hardly remember a better period of American support and backing … than we have right now."

In the economic arena, the Obama team was a leader in fashioning a global response to the financial crisis in 2009. The president has presided over a surge in U.S. exports that has contributed to private sector job growth, even in the hard-pressed sector of manufacturing. The administration also finalized trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, and has pressed our partners — including China — to observe international norms concerning currency valuations and free trade.

In Asia, more generally, the president has shown strength in urging regional solutions to security disputes, thus reassuring smaller countries that China will not be allowed to use its size to ignore their rights.

Overall, Obama's national security policy has been hard-nosed and well-conceived, reassuring to our allies and infuriating to America's foes. Romney is correct to suggest that grave international challenges remain, but wrong to conclude that this fact strengthens the rationale for his candidacy. On the contrary, the ongoing need for stalwart leadership is precisely why the president should be re-elected.

Madeleine K. Albright, former U.S. secretary of State, and Samuel R. Berger, former U.S. national security adviser, served in the Clinton administration and are chairs of the Albright Stonebridge Group.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors.



