One issue that stands out is Iran. During the debate, Governor Romney implied that the President had allowed Iran to come perilously close to acquiring a nuclear weapon. It seems odd, then, that the Governor’s solution is tighter sanctions.
In fact, this administration, in partnership with Congress, has imposed crippling American sanctions on Iran, while rallying the international community around the same cause. Rather than making Iran more likely to acquire devastating weapons, this unprecedented effort has put their country under severe economic pressure, which includes causing the value of Iranian currency to plummet more than 80 percent. This has increased the possibility of a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
Meanwhile, Israel and the United States are holding their largest ever joint military exercise starting this week, and the Israeli Defense Minister has determined our support of this critical ally to be “more than anything” that has been done in the past.
Governor Romney’s mixed messages cause even more confusion when it comes to ending the longest war in our history. Recalling the arguments against a date certain withdrawal from Iraq, he has taken opportunities to oppose the president’s timeline for winding down the war in Afghanistan, calling it “mistaken.” Yet, by the final debate, he was ready to state unequivocally that “we'll make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014.” He even attributes our ability to have a successful transition to President Obama's strategy. It’s no wonder that his running mate, Congressman Paul RyanPaul Davis RyanSpending deal talks down to toughest issues, lawmakers say Schiff: I thought more Republicans would speak out against Trump Dem leaders pull back from hard-line immigration demand MORE, had difficulty describing the Republican ticket’s policy in the vice presidential debate, in which he tried to both commit to the 2014 transition and a reevaluation of that goal in 2013.
The list goes on for Governor Romney. He says the administration’s strategy regarding the Arab Spring has not been “robust” enough, but when the President was working to bring our allies together to help defeat Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in an effort that won the hearts and minds of people across that country, Mr. Romney said we were doing too much.
Now the governor wants the United States to take a more active role in arming opposition groups in Syria, in addition to our significant humanitarian work. Unlike in Libya last year, though, it is almost impossible to ensure those weapons do not fall into the hand of jihadists who make up many of the more than 100 anti-government groups.
I have been honored to serve on both the House Armed Services and Intelligence Committees with colleagues who devote endless hours to our most pressing security issues. They are rare committees in Congress whose work largely transcends partisanship and political maneuvering because members on both sides understand the high stakes involved.
If elected, I trust that Governor Romney would place no priority ahead of protecting our citizens. Unfortunately, his constant contradictions have instilled no confidence in his ability to make the risky call to go after our most wanted foe, or to build a coalition that can topple a brutal dictator while winning support from the people we are assisting. We only know that he is critical of the Administration while being unwilling or unable to articulate clear and consistent differences on key security issues.
In contrast, President Obama has proven to be a resolute leader. He is prepared to act decisively against the greatest threats to our nation, as in the case of Osama bin Laden, but is equally firm in his preference to work with our allies to limit our military’s involvement around the world, as in Libya, while bringing our troops home and focusing more resources on domestic needs. The choice for our commander and chief for the next four years could not be clearer.
Langevin is a member of the House Intelligence Committee and ranking member of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.